Simsbury, CT - Planning Commission Minutes

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 PlaceNameplaceSimsbury PlaceTypeTown Hall. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Susan Bednarcyk, Ferguson Jansen, Carol Cole, and Darren Cunningham, with Brad Mead arriving at approximately 7:20 p.m. Also in attendance was Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, and Richard Sawitzke, Town Engineer, as well as other interested parties.

Rich Sawitzke reviewed various examples of the current maps for the POCD, including the Zoning, Open Space, and Future Land Use maps, as well one of the aerial topography maps the system is capable of creating. After working with Glenn Chalder some changes have been made on the Future Land Use map, including showing the open space corridors and not highlighting remaining vacant land. This latest version also shows the steep slopes highlighted in red. However, in Mr. Sawitzke’s opinion including the slopes tends to break up the open space corridors and seems repetitive since such factors are already noted on other maps for preservation (i.e., Natural Resources). The Commission agreed to remove the steep slopes from the Future Land Use map. Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned why the floodplains and wetlands were not shown separately. Mr. Sawitzke noted they are separated in the detailed maps, but at this level of detail it is hard to distinguish between the two and they almost totally overlap.

Emil Dahlquist suggested editing the residential density designation of ‘Village’ as shown in the map legend to be consistent with the Future By Design chapter (i.e., ‘rural’, ‘general’ and ‘cluster’ residential). In his opinion, the word village denotes some type of commercial component. Commissioner Cole agreed it would create confusion. Mr. Peck suggested, and it was agreed, to change the wording to ‘Village Density’.

Chairman Loomis noted the colors in the final Plan will be more acute and the photos that are currently black and white will be shown in color. Although not included in the printing of this draft, aerial photographs are included online. Commissioner Jansen suggested those would be helpful to the public and should be included in the final Plan. Chairman Loomis requested Commissioners to note any changes or corrections (i.e., DRB should be included in the Responsibility Legend in the Implementation section). Those edits will be addressed after the public hearing in September.

Mr. Peck assured the Commission that, although this copy does not include the words ‘large and/or complex’, the draft he will forward to the BOS does have that language. Mr. Peck indicated there is a good chance of getting this draft approved and suggested, to the extent possible, the Commission avoid word-smithing the draft too much. However, recommendations on issues important to Planning can certainly be brought forward. He recommended the Commission indicate that, although they may have questions as to exactly how the process will work, they agree with the intent and that the wording is workable.

Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned whether Planning would have a say in the selection of the consultant should they see the application as a referral. Mr. Peck indicated the intent is for the Commission with the determination responsibility to have the choice (i.e., if a subdivision application, Planning would choose). However, the Commission receiving the referral could make a recommendation to the responsible Commission as to the type of consultant necessary. Commissioner Bednarcyk commented on how long it has taken to get such an ordinance developed to get the help necessary for Commissions to make educated decisions. However, she also noted how much the Commission’s hands are being tied in order to get a consultant. She agreed with having a list of selected consultants but suggested a worst case scenario could end up where none of the consultants on the list could be chosen for a particular application.

Commissioner Jansen questioned whether the assumption had been lost that this ordinance would be for a peer review, as opposed to starting from scratch, in order to be fair and keep costs reasonable. He also expressed concern with the sliding scale for the excess cost percentages in this current draft, noting that the ‘little guy’ would have to pay a higher percentage over the ‘big guy’. He could agree to an excess of 10%. Mr. Peck indicated the scale was included in order to balance the total amount of money that would be expended and minimize the overcharge. This wording is an attempt to provide a mechanism to legitimately revise a consultant’s study if necessary. He admitted it was not a perfect schedule, but that including it may help the BOS to approve the ordinance. Later in the meeting, both Commissioners Cunningham and Mead agreed that the sliding scale was problematic.

Commissioner Mead questioned why a developer would ever have to pay more than what the original quote would be for a consultant. Mr. Peck indicated this schedule was an attempt to give an absolute top for the costs that the developer would be responsible for and be as fair as possible. He noted, too, that the applicant will be involved in the selection process.

Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned whether the language allowed for the option to have an independent consultant come in. Mr. Peck referred to Paragraph C, which refers to ‘independent studies’. He noted for Commissioner Bednarcyk that ultimately the BOS will have to approve an independent study based on a clear need to do a whole new study or if for some reason the applicant has not provided certain requested information.

Commissioner Jansen further clarified his desire for the use of peer review versus starting from scratch noting that he did not want this ordinance to be used as a tool to strike down anything that could happen in town. In addition, it would be more expensive to start from scratch. Chairman Loomis and Commissioners Bednarcyk, Cole and Mead all agreed they were concerned with limiting the options to just peer review and not affording the opportunity to do the work independently.

Commissioner Bednarcyk motioned to recommend approval of the Fees Ordinance with an amendment to Item F changing the wording to “In no event shall the excess costs billed to the applicant exceed 10% of the fees.” The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cunningham and passed by a vote of 5-1. Voting in favor were Chairman Loomis, Secretary Gardow, and Commissioners Bednarcyk, Cunningham, and Cole. Voting against was Commissioner Jansen.

Chairman Loomis reiterated the Commission’s concern with approving the 4/25/07 combined meeting minutes due to the fact that there were some inaccuracies as a result of poor tape quality. He had requested a full transcript of the meeting and suggested adopting the actual transcript as the minutes. Mr. Peck instead suggested adopting the DVD as the record for the meeting. He confirmed for Commissioner Cunningham that the public would have access to the DVD and both SCTV and the Town’s IT Department has equipment for viewing it.

Mr. Peck noted the application was submitted on 6/5/07, but the official receipt date is marked as 6/18/07 when the Zoning Commission next meets. Mr. Peck will be setting up a schedule for the public hearings and referral dates that need to be met. Based on the 65-day statutory requirement, the public hearing would have to be scheduled by August 20^th. At their last meeting, several members from the BOS suggested the public hearing not be held during the summer. If the applicant agrees to grant an extension, the public hearing could be pushed off until September or October. Mr. Peck will work on presenting the various schedules possible, including the referral to the Planning Commission. Chairman Loomis indicated he would prefer the flexibility of moving beyond the statutorily-required 35 days for Planning to respond once the referral is received. However, Mr. Peck was not sure such an extension is allowed in the Statutes. He suggested he will do his best to try to manage when Planning actually receives the referral, especially if the public hearing date can be extended. In Commissioner Bednarcyk’s opinion, it would be horrible to hold the process during the summer especially for those residents who would want to be involved. Commissioner Mead indicated that if the public hearing is scheduled in the summer it will be viewed as inappropriate to the town and only serve to make the situation more contentious. It will be perceived as having been part of a master plan to make sure that, in the deepness of summer, there was a requirement for the Planning Commission to render a decision.

Mr. Peck indicated that at the joint meeting of the Commissions on Meadowood on 6/13 there will be presentations by Brian Smith, Howard Beach and himself. Although it is not officially a public hearing, the Chairmen of the 3 commissions can decide to accept questions from the public. Mediation and settlement documents have been distributed to all Commissioners. He noted that there have been no physical changes to the plans, but that the wording for the agreements is still being worked on.

Commissioner Bednarcyk expressed concern that the liability lies with the Land Use Commissions who have to sign off on the agreement. Chairman Loomis noted the Commissions have limited discretion with respect to what they can sign off on due to the fact that they are operating off of a court order. Mr. Peck agreed the basic framework has been set, but noted that fine-tuning of the wording still needs to be done. He clarified that the decision is calling for essentially the same density (i.e., 299 units) that the R-40 zone would have allowed on the property had a traditional subdivision been proposed there. The other issues have to do with the remediation of the sites and information on that will be presented at the meeting as well. The current offer includes a significant amount of open space that the Town would benefit from, which doesn’t necessarily have to happen based upon the Supreme Court order. Commissioner Mead confirmed that if this offer is not accepted the developers have the right to go back and increase the density dramatically.

Chairman Loomis asked the Commissioners to focus on the settlement agreement, which has had some changes since March. In addition, he asked they look at the soil relocation and removal management plan with respect to whether there is adequate provision for independent review of the plans and results. He noted the Commissions are under no obligation to vote at the 6/13 meeting.

Secretary Gardow and Commissioner Cole reported on the 6/5/07 workshop they attended, along with Mr. Peck, entitled ‘Bright Ideas in Community Design’. Secretary Gardow noted the keynote speaker was Tony Nelessen and described his Visual Preference Survey that was presented. Commissioner Cole indicated Mr. Nelessen’s information went along with much of the form-based and transect concepts the Commission has discussed over the last few years. She commented on his tone, indicating he may have turned off the mixed group in the audience by expressing many of his personal opinions. Mr. Peck said he was impressed with the DEP Commissioner’s talk on the need for interdepartmental (i.e., DOT, DEP, etc.) communication.

Commissioner Mead requested the Commission discuss the recently proposed building moratorium by Selectman John Romano. Mr. Peck indicated he does not advise a moratorium and, in his opinion, they cause more problems than they solve. First, applications submitted prior to the moratorium are not affected by the moratorium. Second, significant amounts of hastily prepared applications tend to come in just prior to the enactment of the moratorium creating a time-consuming backlog. In addition, passing a moratorium can result in very costly litigation being filed with the Town. Also, a moratorium would need to be put in place as an amendment to the Zoning Regulation and the process for that would take about 60 days. Finally, a moratorium would only be able to withstand a court appeal if it were enacted for a very brief and very specific time period. In his opinion, a moratorium placed to do a planning exercise would be subject to criticism and possible legal overturn.

In reference to the Dover Kohl suggestion to focus on placePlaceNameSimsbury PlaceTypeCenter, Commissioner Cole suggested the Commission discuss whether that is an idea they want to push forward and re-visit the Charette study previously done. Chairman Loomis and Commissioner Cole agreed with Mr. Peck that it could be very expensive. Commissioner Jansen suggested the study may not have to start from scratch.