Simsbury, CT - Planning Commission Minutes

Chairman John Loomis called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the PlaceNameplaceSimsbury PlaceTypeTown Hall. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Susan Bednarcyk, Charles Houlihan, Carol Cole, Brad Mead, and Mark Drake. Also in attendance was Howard Beach, Conservation/Inland Wetlands and Zoning Compliance Officer, as well as other interested parties.

Attorney Rubrich noted there was not a large public turnout at the site walk. The one concern raised had to do with the relative merits of open space dedication versus a conservation easement. He reiterated the reasoning behind the appropriateness of the easement (i.e., lack of public access, size of parcel, etc.). Chairman Loomis confirmed there was no contiguous or adjacent open space, recreation area or public forest that an open space dedication could be joined with. In response to Commissioner Houlihan, Attorney Rubrich noted there was no real reason why the easement did not go all the way to the street on the north end of the parcel. He only commented that they were trying to protect that which was an existing natural buffer and that the northern part of the parcel was mostly field.

Attorney Rubrich made one correction to the proposed resolution handed out this evening. The overall parcel is actually 4.356 acres, not 5.229. Attorney Rubrich indicated the original application was incorrect but all the subsequent attachments and presentations have been based on the corrected figure. Mr. Beach confirmed for Commissioner Bednarcyk that all of the Subdivision Regulations had been met by the applicant. In response to Commissioner Bednarcyk, Attorney Rubrich noted that plantings on the north side were not part of the original application, but could be added if necessary.

There was much discussion among the Commissioners and Town Staff as to the appropriate sequence to handle the resolution. Chairman Loomis requested Mr. Beach discuss with Mr. Peck a cleaner and clearer way to handle these types of motions in the future.

Upon a motion made by Commissioner Houlihan and seconded by Secretary Gardow the following resolution on the findings of fact for the above application was unanimously adopted. Voting on this item were: Chairman Loomis, Secretary Gardow, Ms. Bednarcyk, Mr. Houlihan, Mr. Mead and Ms. Cole.

WHEREAS, the Commission notes the application has also been reviewed by the Farmington Valley Health District with regard to provision for on-site wells, septic systems and reserve area location suitability which have been approved by a letter dated September 27, 2006, and in addition it has determined the property is located well above the 100-year flood elevation of 156 ½ feet in this area; and

WHEREAS, the Commission also notes that the applicant has requested a waiver of the subdivision Open Space requirement, which in this case would amount to 37,352.4 square feet. Instead, the applicant has requested that he be allowed to provide a Permanent Conservation Easement on 38,020 square feet of property which serves to buffer the proposed lots from existing surrounding lots on three sides; and

WHEREAS, the Commission finds the configuration of the subject property in its essential linear shape with all three (3) lots fronting on Terry’s addressStreetPlain Road does not lend itself to requiring an open space set-aside that would permit the public to walk alongside and behind the proposed lots. Rather, the proposed configuration of the Permanent Conservation Easement satisfies the permanently deed-restricted nature of the easement area in terms of use and protection, while still leaving the area on the municipal tax roles.

Commissioner Bednarcyk motioned that the request by the applicant for a waiver of the open space dedication, in accordance with Section III.9 of the Subdivision Regulations, is hereby granted. The Commission accepts the Permanent Conservation Easement of the .873 acres of land as shown on the referenced subdivision map and as defined and specified in the Permanent Conservation Easement as submitted by the applicant, which is to be executed and filed at the same time as the record subdivision mylar map is filed with the Town Clerk. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mead and unanimously approved.

Commissioner Bednarcyk then put forth a motion to approve the subdivision with several modifications, including specific language for plantings within the Conservation Easement on the northernmost lot as well as requiring a planting plan come back to the Planning Commission for their approval. Her motion modified Chairman Loomis’ original suggestion to have it contingent on the Certificate of Occupancy. After discussion regarding Howard Beach’s concern as to whether ‘owner’ was inclusive enough, she withdrew her motion and put forth a motion that would address the planting requirements to the ‘owner/builder/developer’ of the lot. Commissioner Houlihan disagreed with Mr. Beach’s suggestion to put the planting plan directly on the mylar and the Commission agreed not to do so.

Attorney Rubrich then raised a concern as to the longer-term effects of the motion’s planting modification. He cautioned against putting the entire subdivision in jeopardy should the other 2 lots be developed and the northern lot not be developed within the required 5-year time limitation. This modification would then never be put into effect and the entire subdivision may no longer technically exist. After discussion, the Commission agreed with Attorney Rubrich that the best way to handle this would be to recommend amending the Permanent Conservation Easement language to require the planting plan and its subsequent approval by the Planning Commission. This would put the obligation on the northern lot’s owner in perpetuity. Commissioner Bednarcyk agreed to withdraw her original motion.

Commissioner Houlihan motioned that the Commission finds the application to be in essential conformance with the applicable subdivision regulations. Therefore, be it resolved that the Commission hereby approves the submitted application with the following modifications. The modifications are as follows and must be addressed as indicated:

2. The applicant is to submit a properly executed Permanent Conservation Easement at the same time as the record mylar is submitted for signing. These documents are to be filed on the PlaceNameplaceSimsbury PlaceTypeLand Records at the same time.

3. The Permanent Conservation Easement shall be amended to require the owner/builder/developer of the northernmost lot to prepare a planting plan to create a natural buffer area on the northern leg of the Conservation Easement acceptable to the Conservation Officer, in keeping with the neighborhood, and with final approval by the Planning Commission.

Proposed Zoning Regulations amendment submitted by William Miller to AMEND Article Seven E. Uses Permitted in B-1, Restricted Business Zones and to ADD Section O. Uses Permitted in all Business Zones or Mixed Use Zones to adopt changes to Zoning Regulations to restrict gross floor area and access requirements for big box retail stores.

Chairman Loomis noted he had expected a Staff Report to be available with regard to this referral but it was not. He noted it would not be critical to the discussion tonight, but that he wanted to see it prior to the Commission completing their deliberations. He confirmed for Bill Miller that the Commission had received the entire packet, including the tabbed materials referenced at the last meeting (i.e., the traffic study, economic analysis, and additional signatures). Mr. Miller provided a copy of the post card with the specific petition language used which was distributed to residents for their signatures. He confirmed for Commissioner Mead that the signatures represent a cross-section of residents throughout town and concluded that approximately 80% of residents are voicing strong concerns against Big Box development.

Commissioner Mead questioned the meaning and intent of the 4/20/07 formal response from CRCOG regarding the proposed amendment. He suggested neighboring towns are not necessarily CitySimsbury’s concern and that the intent of the amendment is, in fact, to specifically limit Big Box development to the short section in placeCitySimsbury on Route 44. Secretary Gardow noted CRCOG’s responsibility is across towns and the region. Mr. Beach noted that the Route 44 Corridor study showed there is not enough room to expand the road to handle additional traffic. He suggested CRCOG is trying to avoid the concentration of high traffic-generating uses along that area. Commissioner Mead suggested, and Mr. Beach agreed, that there are limited areas for new curb cuts to Route 44 and the issue will be more of redevelopment.

Commissioner Bednarcyk clarified the discussion at the last CRCOG meeting. She noted that a representative from Avon spoke about the Route 44 Corridor study and informed her of a memo had been sent to neighboring towns regarding a proposed median strip from CityplaceCanton down to addressStreetNod Road. Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned why that memo had not been distributed to the Commission. In addition, when CRCOG’s Rebecca Augur discussed the amendment’s intent of keeping development off of Route 10, the discussions focused on not wanting to advocate for the amendment due to additional traffic and safety issues that would be created on Route 44. The suggestion was to come up with a more broad-based limitation, as done by other towns, which would limit Big Box through retail building size or a special permit process rather than by location. Commissioner Mead suggested allowing larger retail development on Route 10 would also create a traffic problem for Route 44, a main feeder to Route 10.

With regard to the amendment language itself, both Chairman Loomis and Commissioner Houlihan found the wording challenging and difficult to read. Commissioner Houlihan noted, too, that towards the end, the amendment actually gets away from Big Box development and talks more about multiple smaller retail stores. Commissioner Cole suggested that, although she also had a hard time reading the amendment, there was some very good, compelling information in the entire presentation. She would rather see that information be presented to the Zoning Commission and request them to come up with an appropriate regulation to avoid the detrimental impacts of Big Box development on the town.

Mr. Miller acknowledged the difficult language, but indicated all Zoning regulations tend to be difficult and suggested that the amendment does become clearer after reading it through several times. He explained the difficulty in dealing with the existing regulations and zones, as well as trying to address possible future zones such as mixed use. He reiterated that a foremost land use attorney was involved in writing the amendment. Mr. Miller agreed there would be little to no overall impact with the restriction of large scale retail development to Route 44. He explained that the wording on multiple smaller retail buildings was added in response to developers who have tried to get around the size restriction regulations.

Chairman Loomis reiterated that Planning’s charge is to work with the current amendment language. Commissioner Bednarcyk noted that when applicants come in Town Staff have usually helped them with the language. She understands the merits of having an applicant talk to a lawyer, but she emphasized that Town Staff should also try to help any applicant with language to express what their intent is. She stressed that the Staff is not supposed to be there just for developers, but for applicants and the commissions as well. In her opinion, that is not happening. Several times during the remainder of the meeting she also strongly expressed a similar opinion.

Commissioner Houlihan suggested what is proposed in the amendment is contrary to the POCD with regards to the square footage limitations. He cautioned against having such an inconsistency between Planning’s recommendations and the actual regulations. Commissioner Drake suggested, as often happens, the 10-year plan has come first and Zoning has the choice to either follow or go contrary to that vision.

After clarifications that this is actually a Zoning referral and not coming directly to Planning, the Commission discussed how to proceed along with the required timing for their response to Zoning. A public hearing is scheduled for 5/7/07 but Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested asking Zoning not to close the hearing until Planning could meet again on 5/8. Mr. Beach indicated the applicant could grant an extension on the public hearing as well. He will check the file with regards to the exact timing involved. In light of the inconsistencies and difficult language, Commissioner Houlihan made a motion to give a negative referral to the Zoning Commission. Ultimately, however, there was no second to the motion. Chairman Loomis suggested the Commission was not in a position to make a well thought-out referral tonight and recommended, if possible, continuing the referral until 5/8.

Chairman Loomis commented that, according to the Rebecca Augur ‘05/06 research material, the town of Ellington has a retail building size limit of 30,000 sq. ft. but by a ¾ vote by Commissioners they can go up to 60,000 sq. ft. by special exception. In addition, placeCityVernon has two areas in town where the aggregate square footage limit is 25,000.

Chairman Loomis noted the edits for the Draft Plan are now with Glenn Chalder. A meeting is scheduled for 4/27 for all the individuals involved in mapping (i.e., Rich Sawitzke, Jim Richardson, New England GeoSystems, etc.) The intent will be to bring together the most current and complete maps for each section. Commissioner Bednarcyk will contact Mr. Richardson to ensure her edits have been included.

Commissioner Bednarcyk reported on the additional material discussed at the recent CRCOG meeting. Gian-Carl Casa, Director of Legislative Services for the CT Conference of Municipalities spoke on current property tax reform issues. Commissioner Bednarcyk will be getting copies of the minutes for each of the Commissioners. Information was given about the CT Land Use Academy and the variety of sessions being offered on several dates in May.

Chairman Loomis indicated a lot of work is going on with regard to the PDD. Workshops, led by Dwight Merriam, will be held with the Zoning Commission and Design Review Board to collaboratively work through the details and arrive at something that can be taken to public hearing.

Chairman Loomis characterized the Riverview groundbreaking as both a ‘marvelous occasion’ and encouraging. The banquet facility is scheduled to open in May ’08 and is already heavily booked, in addition to The Simsbury Inn in relation to Riverview’s bookings. Commissioner Bednarcyk recounted the principal’s acknowledgement of the role of the Design Review Board.

Chairman Loomis let the Commissioners know they should expect email material from Dwight Merriam and/or Hiram Peck with regard to the River Oaks presentation on 4/28. Chairman Loomis described the procedures and proper protocol for the meeting. Commissioner Mead characterized the conflict of interest and predisposition piece that had already been handed out as excellent.

Chairman Loomis noted that two public hearings will be held at Eno Hall on 5/14 to consider several ordinances. The first deals with the framework and ground rules for the retention of specialized services with regard to large and complex land use applications. The second deals with formally permitting combined land use meetings. In response to Commissioner Bednarcyk, Chairman Loomis agreed the Commission could address the content of the ordinances at the next meeting and choose whether Planning wants to make a formal statement. The Commissioners are also welcome to appear at the public hearing individually to make statements.

Commissioner Bednarcyk directed the Commissioners to an article in Monday’s Hartford Courant regarding the proposed division of placeCityFarmington’s combined land use commission. Chairman Loomis noted that the article was specifically in regard to breaking out the Conservation Commission.

Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested a future agenda item be discussing the preparation of an application checklist to make the entire review process cleaner and save time. She offered to spearhead the process. Commissioner Houlihan suggested Town Staff currently go through a checklist for each application and prepare a report for the Commissions. In his opinion, it was unseemly to level accusations that Town Staff is not going through the items completely. Commissioner Bednarcyk did not agree, indicating certain items were missing tonight and there have been plenty of other times where applications were not complete.