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 7:05 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 Mark Drake. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, and Howard Beach, Zoning Enforcement and Conservation Officer, as well as other interested parties.

II. SEATING OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Loomis appointed Mark Drake as alternate for Darren Cunningham and Carol Cole as alternate for Charles Houlihan.

III. PUBLIC HEARING to discuss and possibly decide a possible settlement to litigation involving the Zoning Commission, Planning Commission and Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency and the applicant/owners River Bend Associates, Inc., and Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc., and the North Simsbury Coalition, Inc. for Meadwood, a planned residential community located on property bordering Hoskins Road, Firetown Road, Barndoor Hills Road, Holcomb Street, and County Road in the HOD Zone and shown on the Simsbury Assessors map as Map E-4 Block 302 Lots 5, 55 5HT and 5BDH; and Block 301 Lot 5; and Block 207 Lot 1 and Map H-5 Block 403 Lots 26-32 and 26-32H.

Commissioner Jansen recused himself for this portion of the agenda. For the record, Secretary Gardow noted he was absent from the 6/13/07 combined special meeting, but had since viewed the entire DVD of the proceedings and was prepared to act as a full Commissioner this evening.

Chairman Loomis asked Mr. Peck to review the process that has occurred since the 6/13 meeting. Mr. Peck noted that on 6/13 the Planning Commission members requested more time to review the documents received that night. All questions provided to Mr. Peck by the Commissioners were forwarded on to Town’s Special Counsel Brian Smith and, in turn, sent on to the applicant. The applicant responded with changes to the documents, with the primary changes occurring in the Soil Relocation and Removal Management Plan Parcel 3 East. Attorney Smith added that the questions received from Mr. Peck were forwarded to Attorney Hollister, representing River Bend and placePlaceNameGriffin PlaceTypeLand, for their commentary. In response to those concerns, the applicant was willing to make the changes seen in tonight’s version. In addition, Attorney Smith has forwarded answers regarding questions on issues other than the Soil Plan to both Mr. Peck and the Commissioner’s.

The Commission then reviewed the changes to the Soil Plan. In response to Chairman Loomis’ request, the Town’s Environmental Consultant, Gordon Brookman, PE, indicated the Threshold Limit Value (TLV) as being a standard value used to indicate safe levels of breathable air. This standard is used by OSHA and pertains to both adults and children. Both Howard Beach and Mr. Brookman clarified that this section (5.2) is only dealing with levels of dust particles and not toxins. Attorney Smith noted, too, that the language indicates ‘to less than the threshold’.

Moving on to Section 5.3, Mr. Peck noted that the wording changes made are an important and helpful clarification from the way the document read previously with regard to suspending the soil removal until an effective methodology can be implemented to reduce the toxin concentrations below the Ambient Air Standard (AAS). In response to Chairman Loomis’ request for clarification, Mr. Brookman indicated the AAS is an EPA standard set for various chemicals with regard to their concentration in the air.

Language was added to Section 6.0 stating that a CT licensed Professional Engineer would be responsible for preparing a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan for soil relocation and removal activities. Attorney Smith noted this language would then hold the applicant to a specific regulatory standard.

Within Section 7.0, Mr. Peck indicated wording was changed to ensure placePlaceNameGriffin PlaceTypeLand will implement a confirmatory soil sampling program with copies of the results provided promptly to the Town. A grid will be established within the soil excavation area and random sampling will be conducted. Language was also added to allow the Town, at its own cost, to retain a professional to review and verify the results. Commissioner Bednarcyk noted this was the section she had the most concern with. She questioned whether the grid would be done exactly as the initial grid had been done. Mr. Beach stated the testing regime will be the same, including the proposed number of tests needed for the statistical confidence. However, the test holes would not be the same. It would be a new random sampling only in areas where the soil is relocated or removed. Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned what would happen if a hot spot was located. Mr. Beach confirmed that area would then need to go back for remediation. Attorney Smith commented on the importance of the Town having the opportunity to participate and do their own independent analysis.

Lastly, the changes to Section 9.0 elaborate on the frequency of the Groundwater Monitoring Program. Monthly monitoring will occur for 3 months with results reported promptly to the Town. Unless data indicates an inconsistency with RSR criteria, development may proceed. Following the 3-month monitoring, groundwater monitoring would then be conducted quarterly and results reported to the Town. Chairman Loomis questioned how the applicant would determine when, if ever, to terminate monitoring. Mr. Brookman indicated under the RSRs an attempt is made to get 4 quarterly events below the standards and then another year of quarterly monitoring is done. Attorney Smith indicated, and Mr. Brookman agreed, the initial monthly monitoring is more intensive than normal. Mr. Brookman also noted, at this point, there has not been anything that has even been above detection levels in any of the groundwater samples.

Chairman Loomis thanked PlaceNameplaceGriffin PlaceTypeLand, Attorney Hollister and others for seriously considering the Commission’s recommendations and questions and embracing many of those satisfactorily.

The Commission then reviewed a few additional clarifications and modifications to the proposed settlement. It was agreed Mr. Brookman would provide a summary comment at the time of the motion regarding his opinion on the latest Soil Plan and its contents. After discussion, Section 2.0 was re-worded to clarify that soil relocation and removal activities, including post-removal testing and sampling, would be complete prior to the construction of any residential structures. Mr. Peck noted that there had been a question as to whether the wording implied drainage structures as well as residential structures. Attorney Hollister indicated that recently the Plan had been broken down into an initial Remediation Phase and then 3 Residential Phases. The ‘Phase I’ cited in this section refers to the initial residential phase. Commissioner Drake clarified that during the road construction remediation will take place but will be completed prior to any foundations going in the ground.

After discussion as to the exact wording, and Attorney Smith’s later suggestion to add ‘CT licensed’, it was ultimately agreed to change the last line of Section 6.0 to: ‘A CT licensed Professional Engineer will determine if it is warranted whether the staging, transfer, and/or temporary storage of excavated soils will need to be registered under the CT General Permit for Contaminated Soil and/or Sediment Management.’ Mr. Brookman confirmed for Secretary Gardow that there are certain clear requirements that need to be followed to determine if a general permit is necessary or not.

Within Section 7.0, Mr. Peck raised the question as to whether the soil relocation areas as well as the soil excavation areas should be included in the grid of random soil sampling. Mr. Beach’s opinion was that both areas should be included in order to avoid creating hot spots by moving soil from one area to another. Attorney Hollister requested Bob Potterton of Fuss & O’Neill to address the issue as the applicant did not feel that it was necessary. Mr. Potterton described the 2 excavation areas – one at Hoskins 7 where the soil will be removed, and then another that will move soil from the area that has an issue with the mobility criteria to an area that does not. The materials that are going to be moved all meet the current Residential Direct Exposure standard to begin with so there is no need to re-test those soils. Testing will be done on the area where the soils are removed to ensure there are no longer any materials in that area that exceed the mobility standard. Mr. Potterton confirmed for Chairman Loomis that in the Hoskins 7 area the soils will be taken off-site. Mr. Brookman agreed with the proposed plan, as long as they will be testing both the Hoskins 7 and the relocation excavation areas and the current language does call for that. It was agreed to retain the language as is.

Finally, Mr. Peck noted there were a couple of blank spaces on pages 3 and 4 of his copy of the Settlement Agreement that need to be filled in with the appropriate sheet number. Later in the meeting, Attorney Hollister noted for Mr. Peck that on his copy those spaces were not blank.

Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned Mr. Brookman as to the effect of airborne soil on the surrounding residents or school children during the soil removal. Mr. Brookman assured that there would only be a short-term effect, if any, but would not be harmful with how the plan is set up. If levels above the required standard are detected in the dust particles activity will stop and the ground watered to minimize the dust and not allow any possible long-term problematic effects. Mr. Beach also noted that the concentrations of the toxin levels in the soil are so low that the levels of the dust particles will exceed the standards far before any of the toxicity levels in the dust. Commissioner Drake questioned the estimated time period for the soil removal and relocation. Mr. Potterton noted it depended on how much equipment could be brought in, but thought it would take no longer than several months.

Attorney Smith commented that placePlaceNameGriffin PlaceTypeLand has responded quite promptly to the Commission’s requests. Based on Mr. Brookman’s comments and his own review of the responses he would recommend these changes as being appropriate and responsive to the concerns raised by the Commission since June 13.

For the record, Mr. Brookman indicated that an initial soil plan was developed in November 2006, a revised plan done in May 2007, and then placeCityGriffin responded again with revisions as of 6/26/07. He stated he has no problem with the plan and that it is a good plan.

Commissioner Bednarcyk referenced documents she recently received with regard to the open space purchase terms and the grasslands preservation program and questioned whether they should be discussed this evening. Attorney Smith indicated that minor changes to the wording of the open space purchase agreement are still being worked on and suggested the Commission wait until the Board of Selectmen formally refers this issue to Planning as an 8-24 referral.

The Commission then reviewed the proposed resolution and made appropriate changes to reflect all of the issues discussed tonight. Attorney Smith suggested including a statement at the end of the proposed clarifications and modifications in the resolution stating: ‘A copy of the Soil Relocation and Removal Management Plan Parcel 3 East, last revised 6/26/07, is attached and incorporated as part of this motion’.

Secretary Gardow proposed the following resolution regarding the pending litigation between the Simsbury Planning Commission and River Bend Associates, Inc. and Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc. and North Simsbury Coalition, Inc. pertaining to Meadowood, a Planned Residential Community as described in submitted maps, plans and documents as listed herein.

At public meetings held on June 13, 2007 and June 26, 2007, the Simsbury Planning Commission, in accordance with all applicable legal requirements and as advised by staff, consultants and Special Legal Counsel for this matter, has reviewed all pertinent documents pertaining to the above referenced proposed development and notes the following:

Documents received and reviewed:

A. Meadowood, A Planned Residential Community; Maps and Plans dated June 2, 2000 Settlement Revision: May 30, 2007 consisting of a total of 132 bound sheets.

B. Soil Relocation and Removal Management Plan, Parcel 3 East, by Fuss & O’Neill dated November 2005, revised May 2007, last revised June 26, 2007.

C. Settlement Agreement; River Bend Associates, Inc., et. al. v. Planning Commission of the Town of CityplaceSimsbury, et. al. dated as of June 26, 2007.

D. Applicants’ Affordability Plan for Housing Opportunity Units, revised to May 30, 2007 prepared by Griffin Land, Fairfield 2000 Homes Corporation and Shipman & Goodwin LLP.

E. Declaration for Meadowood, CityplaceSimsbury, StateCT; Shipman & Goodwin LLP Draft dated 5/29/07.

F. Housing Opportunity Development Zone, Zoning Regulation Amendment to Article Ten of the CityplaceSimsbury Zoning Regulations; Revised to May 30, 2007.

The Planning Commission has considered the above documents and has the following requirements for clarification or modification to the proposed settlement:

Soil Relocation and Removal Management Plan Parcel 3 East; Last Revised June 26, 2007, (pertains to all Commissions)

1. It is noted that the applicant has made revisions to Sections 1.0, 2.0, 5.2, 5.3, 6.0, 7.0, and 9.0 of this document in response to questions and requests from the Commission. These revisions were provided to the Commission on June 26, 2007.

2. The Town’s Environmental Consultant, Gordon Brookman, PE, of G:ZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., has provided a statement that an initial plan was developed in November 2006, a revised plan provided in May 2007, and then PlaceNameplaceGriffin PlaceTypeLand responded again with a revised plan in June 2007. Mr. Brookman has no problem with the plan, as revised as of 6/26/07, and stated that it is a good plan.

3. Section 2.0. This section has been re-worded to be clear that soil relocation and remediation activities will be completed prior to construction of any residential structures associated with

any phase of the residential development.

4. Section 6.0. This section has been re-worded to state that a CT licensed Professional Engineer will determine, if it is warranted, whether the staging, transfer and/or temporary storage of excavated soils will need to be registered under the Connecticut General Permit for Contaminated Soil and/or Sediment Management program.

5. A copy of the Soil Relocation and Removal Management Plan Parcel 3 East, last revised June 26, 2007, is attached and incorporated as part of this motion.

The Planning Commission hereby approves the proposed settlement based on the above maps, documents, and agreement terms as revised.

In addition, the Planning Commission hereby agrees to allow the Town’s Special Counsel to complete all required documents in accordance with the above referenced concerns.

Secretary Gardow motioned for the Planning Commission to approve the revised resolution as read into the record. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Drake and approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0.

Commissioner Bednarcyk commented that she was glad they took the time to be thorough.

Chairman Loomis thanked all the attorneys involved in this process. On behalf of PlaceNameplaceGriffin PlaceTypeLand and all the members of the team, Attorney Hollister, too, thanked both the Commission and all the staff members involved, including Mr. Peck, Mr. Beach, Mr. Brookman and Attorney Smith, for their very hard work.

IV. INFORMAL PRESENTATION by Anthony Giorgio, Managing Director, The Keystone Companies, LLC, on a proposed mixed use development called Dorset Crossing, on property located at 1507 and addressStreet1515 Hopmeadow Street.

Dr. Anthony Giorgio introduced the members of the team for the Dorset Crossing project. He expressed his appreciation for the opportunity for this informal presentation. Dr. Giorgio described the reclaiming work he and his partner have done on the proposed site over the last 3 years in preparation for development, as well as their extensive master planning. He indicated they put an application in a year ago but were requested to withdraw it while the Town worked on their own regulations for mixed use. Although the regulation is not complete, they have begun the informal presentation process. He noted the invaluable input the Design Review Board has provided to the project along the way.

Dr. Giorgio explained that with all of the developments he and his partner have done there has been an attempt to connect the name of the community, streets, etc. with the history of the town they are developing in. Since settlers in the Town of CitySimsbury most likely came from Symondsbury in placeCityDorset, country-regionEngland, they have come up with the name Dorset Crossing. It is their intent to marry much of the historically significant architecture from Dorset to the architecture here in CitySimsbury and work to set the stage for the northern entrance into placeCitySimsbury. Dr. Giorgio indicated the plan is for 96,000 sq. ft. of commercial development, including retail and food services. There will be approximately 89,000 sq. ft. of office space, medical, professional and what they are calling “residential office”. There will be about 100 residential units, with 10-12 apartments, 30 or so townhouses, 60 single-family homes (50 detached and 10-12 executive condos in the far northwestern corner of site). Throughout the planning, the team has tried to be sensitive to placeCitySimsbury’s concern regarding addressStreetWolcott Road and its alignment to Hopmeadow. Dr. Giorgio has also negotiated with placePlaceNameGriffin PlaceTypeLand to do a land swap so that a public road, which is now slated to end in a temporary cul de sac, could be continued on for some future connection to addressStreetCounty Road. Dr. Giorgio indicated the one tobacco barn located on the proposed site will be disassembled and reassembled in a different area on the site, to the best of their ability.

David Ziaks, Civil Engineer with F.A. Hesketh, gave an overview of the 67-acre site, including the 8 acres of wetlands, the intended alignment of addressStreetWolcott Road, and the proposed 2 access points to the development from Route 10 (i.e., main focus point towards the north and an additional secondary access towards the south). He described the size of the development as quite modest and therefore will result in only a modest increase in traffic generation, which minimizes the amount of improvements needed along Route 10. A landscaped median is in the proposal to soften the effect across the frontage. Within the development, a ‘downtown’ area would be established parallel to Route 10, with an emphasis on pedestrian movement. Most of the retail uses will be towards the front of the development and the largest building footprint will be a 15,000 sq. ft. medical office building. In response to Commissioner Bednarcyk, Dr. Giorgio indicated no leases have been signed, but they are hopeful that the medical office building will be a St. Francis facility. Mr. Ziaks noted that Cumberland Farms Convenience store and gas station is no longer part of the development plan. In response to Chairman Loomis, Mr. Ziaks indicated the development cannot be pushed back much further west due to the large marshy area towards the back of the development. Mr. Ziaks indicated the coverage percentage is approximately 45% over the entire site and can easily achieve the 20% open space requirement. He and Dr. Giorgio further described the proposed public road that could eventually be continued to connect Wolcott to addressStreetCounty Road. At the cul de sac, a private drive will be put in to give access to the condos towards the rear of the development.

Tom Arcari, architect with Quisenberry & Arcari, described in detail and provided visuals for the various building types, sizes, and uses throughout the proposed site. The vision is for a village with a pedestrian priority focused on personal scale throughout the entire community. The development will have a commercial core surrounded by residential housing of different make-up, some public and recreation spaces, leisure and office spaces with single family development and high-end housing to the east. In response to Chairman Loomis, Mr. Arcari further described the 1-acre green space nearest Route 10 indicating it will be surrounded by retail and restaurants and used for restaurant dining and public plaza with a pavilion. Overall, it will be the focal point for all of the walking paths. Chairman Loomis encouraged the team with the direction in which they were moving in terms of design and the sensitivity to the character both from within and what is seen from Route 10. He confessed the original design reminded him of the placeCityCanton development. Dr. Giorgio noted that the architecture and scale of this development, as well as the work with the DRB and with the removal of the gas station, allows for a different feel to be created.

In response to Commissioner Bednarcyk, Mr. Arcari described the scale, height and relation to the street of the largest building housing the medical offices and described the various opportunities provided to engage pedestrian areas. He went on further to describe the specifics of the downtown district with its different shops, service providers, offices; all unique in size, scale, nature, massing and relation to the street. In response to Chairman Loomis question regarding accommodating parking, Mr. Arcari noted the main goal is to make the relationship of the parking to the sidewalks as simple as possible, with the only parking ‘lot’ being located near the medical office building. He described the office building located at the south entrance, as well as the proposed bank structure, with a drive-thru nestled between the 2 structures that make up the building. In response to Chairman Loomis, Mr. Arcari indicated the maximum height of either of the larger buildings is less than 40 feet. In addition, the larger buildings have been located away from Route 10 and the smaller buildings placed nearer to Route 10.

Mr. Arcari explained the residential units, some rental and some owned, as having a neighborhood green, a private interior court, rear access, and the living spaces oriented to the street. In response to Chairman Loomis, it would take approximately 10-15 minutes to walk from the center of the development to any of the extremes. Mr. Arcari confirmed for Commissioner Drake that there would be limited access to the tenant parking and the internal rear access area would be restricted and secure.

In summary, Mr. Arcari noted that the team envisions a community built on the pillars of size, proportion, material and use that all directly address the human scale. They are committed to the process that will achieve such a development.

Secretary Gardow suggested obtaining a tenant that could create a pub-like atmosphere similar to that in Symondsbury placecountry-regionEngland. Dr. Giorgio agreed and indicated they are still doing a detailed inventory of the retail uses in the surrounding areas. Mr. Arcari confirmed for Commissioner Cole that the proposed building materials are brick. Secretary Gardow complimented the architectural renderings, but noted his first impression was that the whole concept for the development had a ‘ponderous’ look and suggested trying to soften the edges. Commissioner Cole agreed it seemed ‘big and heavy’. She encouraged the team, however, that this is a great opportunity to do something unique that works for both the developer and the Town. Dr. Giorgio described it as a balancing act between developing something the Town wants and still being practical and pragmatic.

Dr. Giorgio indicated there is no formal date for the team to go back before the DRB, but assured they will continuously be part of the process. Both he and Chairman Loomis agreed the working relationship with DRB so far has been quite productive. Chairman Loomis thanked the team for the excellent presentation and characterized the evolution of this development as remarkable.

V. PUBLIC HEARING

a. Application of Gregory F. DeManche, Attorney, Estate of Ruth H. Shaw – Owner, Gregory F. DeManche, DeManche McChristian, LLC, Agent, for a two (2) lot subdivision on property located at addressStreet70 Notch Road in the R-40 Zone.

Attorney DeManche referenced the previous application which has been subsequently withdrawn. The file is now complete and this new application comes before the Commission tonight.

Doug Ellis, civil engineer from Buck & Buck, described the 2-lot subdivision, each lot in excess of 2 acres. The lower lot contains existing structures (house, pool, shed, etc.) The proposed new lot will be on septic and served by well. Mr. Ellis distributed a letter from the Farmington Valley Health District regarding the soil testing. The septic on placeLot 2 has been adjusted to accommodate the recent discovery of the exact location of an adjacent well. Later in the meeting, Mr. Peck noted a letter has also been received from the WPCA indicating the proposed lot is within the sewer district but at this time and for the foreseeable future the lot will not have sewer access, therefore the use of a septic system would be appropriate.

Mr. Peck noted the applicant went before the Wetlands Commission, who approved the application but indicated if the actual specific development plan differs in the future the applicant would return to the Commission for their review. Mr. Peck confirmed the present plan provides for adequate frontage, setbacks and drainage. As related by Mr. Peck, the Town Engineer requested the applicant obtain final approval from him regarding drainage prior to any development due to some grade existing on the lot. In addition, the Town Engineer has requested the front lot line, which is not included on the current recorded maps, be established. Mr. Peck assured the lot sizes are well in excess of the required minimum lot size. In response to Commissioner Bednarcyk, Mr. Ellis indicated the applicant is willing to grant something in terms of a conservation easement. Mr. Peck confirmed for Secretary Gardow that the one free cut does not apply to this application as title research showed the lot had previously been cut. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested walking the site. A site walk was set up for Friday, June 29, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Ellis confirmed the proposed lot, house, and septic location are all staked.

There were no questions from the audience regarding this application.

VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 12, 2007 and June 13, 2007.

Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the 6/12/07 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jansen and unanimously approved.

Commissioner Bednarcyk motioned to adopt both the 6/13 combined meeting minutes, as edited, as well as the DVD for the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Drake and unanimously approved, with Commissioner Jansen and Secretary Gardow abstaining.

VII. STAFF REPORTS

Mr. Peck noted that the PDD working group should be meeting again within the next week.

Mr. Peck indicated the official receipt date of the application is 6/18/07. Under the statutory requirements, the public hearing would then need to open by 8/20/07. He has requested an extension from the applicant but has not received an answer as of yet. If the initial extension is granted the public hearing could be put off until 9/24/07. The application would then be referred to the Planning Commission at least 35 days prior to 9/24. The public hearing could open as late as 10/24, but Mr. Peck indicated he does not recommend all of the extensions be used at the front end of the process. The application actually consists of 3 different applications - their own PDD, the site plan itself, and the application for the PDD. Town Special Counsel has been sent questions as to exactly how the application will be processed. Commissioner Bednarcyk confirmed with Mr. Peck that the Planning Commission could also choose to hold a public hearing in reviewing the application as a referral.

Mr. Peck stated that all Commissions have reviewed and responded to the Fees Ordinance except for the Zoning Board of Appeals. He has asked the Chairman to gather the opinions of the members and respond to Mr. Peck so he can provide the Board of Selectmen with each of the Commissions’ comments. All the other Land Use Commissions basically agreed the fees ordinance was a good idea. Aside from the Planning Commission suggesting a change in the excess fee percentage cap, the only other issue was with the definition of ‘large and/or complex’ applications. In response to Commissioner Bednarcyk questioning why the ZBA would ever use the ordinance, Mr. Peck noted they are a regulatory board and that someone could ask for a variance for something that did not meet the Zoning Regulations.

addressStreet344 West Mountain Road

Mr. Peck indicated notification from the Town Attorney was given on 6/20/07 that the motion was granted for a withdrawal of the litigation with regard to 344 West Mountain. The application for the appeal is no longer pending. Commissioner Bednarcyk was surprised to see excavation had already occurred. Mr. Peck noted the appeal does not stop the activity. Mr. Peck confirmed for Chairman Loomis that a 90-day extension was granted to file a map.

Lowes Development – Route 44

Mr. Peck informed the Commission that he was continuing to coordinate with CityCanton and placeAvon regarding the proposed Lowes development along Route 44 to make it compatible with the existing area, including addressing specific traffic issues. Medians have been suggested, but some retail establishments are not in favor of it saying it will restrict the ability for patrons to access their property.

VIII. COMMUNICATIONS

Commissioner Cole commented on CRCOG’s copy of the teleconference ‘Complete Streets’, which dealt with establishing within communities a coexistence between road, pedestrian and bike traffic. She found the reading materials more interesting and informative than the actual teleconference and will provide copies to the Commissioners. She also noted that legislation passed recently makes municipalities ineligible for discretionary State funds effective July of this year if their Plans of Conservation and Development are not updated as required by law.

Commissioner Jansen noted he was working on removing the ‘No Right Turn on Red’ restrictions on addressStreetPlank Hill Road by the Maple Tree Café as well as at the intersection of Drake Hill and Route 10.

Chairman Loomis reported on the recent Congress of New Urbanism New England’s presentation by Norman Garrick, Professor of Urban Planning and Transportation at UCONN, at City Steam in placeCityHartford. He noted Mr. Garrick was very good, talked mostly about Charleston, South Carolina, and made reference to Dover Kohl and their work there. Mr. Garrick spoke about streetscapes and how transportation and communities can interrelate.

Commissioner Jansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bednarcyk and unanimously approved.

___________________________________________

Ernest B. Gardow, Secretary