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, Ferguson Jansen, Carol Cole, Darren Cunningham, Charles Houlihan, Brad Mead and Mark Drake, with Sue Bednarcyk arriving at approximately 8:10 p.m. Also in attendance was Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, as well as other interested parties.

Attorney DeManche noted the applicant has submitted a request for a waiver of the 20% open space dedication requirement and invited Doug Ellis, civil engineer from Buck & Buck, to elaborate on a proposed 20% conservation easement. Mr. Ellis described the boundaries of the proposed easement which included the entire existing wetland area and 5 feet beyond. In response to Commissioner Jansen, Mr. Ellis noted that the easement is approximately 20% of the entire area to be subdivided, although most of it does fall on the new lot with the pond and existing wetland area. Due to the location of the existing septic area, it was decided not to utilize for the easement the 50-foot strip along the back of the lots. In response to Chairman Loomis’ request for a persuasive argument for allowing an easement rather than an open space dedication, Attorney DeManche suggested the area lends itself well to an easement with the large pond and wetland area and an easement essentially carries out the intent of the regulation with an identical practical effect. Later in the meeting, he noted there would be an additional liability if the area were deeded to the Town. Chairman Loomis noted the existing town-owned open space adjacent to the east. Mr. Peck indicated the topography there is fairly steep and he was unaware of an existing trail system.

The Commission then had a lengthy discussion whether an easement or a fee-simple dedication would serve the town’s best interest in this particular case. Mr. Peck noted that if the easement remained as shown on the plan and a delineation of the boundaries was provided the benefit would essentially be the same with regard to function. In addition, the land would remain on the tax base. From a natural resources standpoint, what is being offered makes sense. He agreed with Chairman Loomis that the Conservation Commission could be consulted. He reminded the Commission that upon the approval of the Conservation Commission they requested a re-review of the plan once an actual development was proposed. Commissioner Drake suggested, and Commissioner Jansen agreed, that the area is a swampy watershed and would not provide good accessibility for the majority of the public. In addition, Commissioner Drake noted that if the use of that area were to be completely restricted it would take away a small, but valuable and usable, high and dry area that the owners could have access to in an easement situation.

Mr. Peck indicated a standard conservation easement could be drawn up for the designated area and filed with the subdivision plan. In addition, the area could be marked in a subtle yet clear manner for any future owners. Attorney DeManche agreed to comply with both suggestions. Commissioner Houlihan agreed with the importance of maintaining the integrity of the boundaries. Although the ideal would be a dedication of open space, Secretary Gardow was convinced that a conservation easement would be the best solution in this case. Commissioner Mead agreed with the current plan and use of an easement. During the motion process for the approval of the subdivision, Commissioner Cunningham suggested that the easement drawn up be consistent with Town standards. Mr. Peck confirmed for Chairman Loomis that the perimeter delineation will be included.

Commissioner Jansen motioned to approve the subdivision at 70 Notch Road with the 20% conservation easement as shown on the plan dated 7/10/07 with the stipulation that the Conservation Commission approve the plan as is, and that the conservation easement be drawn up by Town Staff consistent with Town standards and given back to the Chairman of the Planning Commission for final sign-off. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Drake and unanimously approved, with Commissioner Houlihan abstaining

Mr. Peck attested for the record that the updated Soil Relocation Plan has incorporated all of the changes requested by the Planning Commission. He will distribute a copy to all Commissioners. Chairman Loomis commented on the excellent cooperation from all parties involved, including Town Staff and attorneys, as well as Attorney Hollister. He characterized the updated plan as ‘more effective’ and ‘more robust’ and that it provides more clarity than if the changes had not been made. Mr. Peck noted the next step will be for the attorneys to finalize the settlement documents and re-present those to the court to withdraw the pending litigation.

Commissioner Mead asked when ground is to be broken and Mr. Peck replied that the intention is for next year depending on the market cycles. In response to Chairman Loomis’ question regarding the possible disposition of the Barndoor Hills/Firetown ‘triangle’, Mr. Peck indicated, although he cannot go into a lot of detail, the town is actively pursuing financial options for the acquisition of that area as open space while at the same time minimizing the effect on the townspeople. He indicated that depending on how the purchase is funded restrictions could be put in place (i.e., maintain for agricultural purposes or grasslands). A decision to purchase it would have to be made by May ’08. Commissioner Cole questioned whether residents not involved in that area would be willing to be taxed in order to preserve the parcel. Commissioner Mead commented on the support residents gave for the Ethel Walker open space even though the parcel was not as visible as this parcel. In his opinion, residents did not view it in terms of their willingness to be taxed or not. Commissioner Cole suggested there would need to be a group actively garnering support, as was the case with the EWS property. Chairman Loomis suggested the Open Space Committee would be discussing this area and Commissioner Houlihan indicated the Northern Simsbury Coalition will most likely be involved as well.

Mr. Peck distributed a memo he drafted to the Board of Selectmen regarding the summary of the various comments from the Boards and Commissions on to the Fees Ordinance. Mr. Peck and the Town Attorney have been directed by the BOS to address their comments raised last night, including an acceptable definition of ‘large and complex’ projects. Mr. Peck is unsure whether all the questions are addressable (i.e., whether Commissions can make a decision based on economic impact) and will be consulting with the Town Attorney.

Chairman Loomis agreed with the basic approach being peer review, but expressed his desire to ensure that the option is held open for the opportunity for independent study. Mr. Peck indicated if a land use commission were to request certain information from an applicant they see as necessary and well founded that the applicant does not provide most likely the Board of Selectmen would approve additional study. The BOS needs to feel comfortable that they have an ultimate approval check in place. Commissioner Houlihan agreed the Town has the obligation to get all essential information on an application. However, he expressed concern with forcing a developer to fund a study they do not see as necessary or appropriate. The Town may have to provide some funding. Commissioner Mead questioned what the limit would be as to how many studies could be done and paid for by the developer. Mr. Peck noted he hoped they would not have to find out, but that still is a question that needs to be addressed. While the ordinance puts some of the responsibility on the developer, there is no question that the Town has to participate at some point in the process as well.

Commissioner Bednarcyk feels the ordinance should be clear in providing a menu of options, i.e., peer review would be one option, an independent study another option. In her opinion, the involved land use commission needs to be allowed to make the ultimate decision as to whether additional expertise is needed or not. Commissioner Drake suggested a budget be designated to the land use commissions, but until that happens each Commission is ultimately beholden to the BOS who, according to Commissioner Houlihan, is ‘in charge of the purse’. Commissioner Drake noted that in his experience as a builder most developers will give whatever information is requested. However, some boards can be quite unreasonable with outlandish requests that are not within their purview. He could see the BOS, who has no stake in the application, as being a reasonable arbiter. Mr. Peck commented that it will all depend on the facts of each case as presented to the BOS. In addition, the whole process as outlined in the ordinance needs to be done with an appropriate spirit of compromise. Commissioner Jansen cautioned how touchy and very complicated the focus on economic impact can be. He wants to see the Town protect themselves, but every application is unique with different markets, timing and areas in town all influencing the outcome of a project.

Chairman Loomis reviewed the timeline for the River Oaks application. The public hearing for the Zoning Commission will open on 9/24/07. The Planning Commission could begin considering the referral from Zoning on 8/14/07. He suggested meetings on 9/11 and 9/18 as well to review the material and make a decision prior to the 9/24 Zoning meeting. Those meetings could be set up as public hearings. In addition, the public hearing for the adoption of the Plan is scheduled for 9/19.

Commissioner Mead expressed his frustration with the small amount of time in order to deliberate and turn around a decision on an application of such scale and magnitude. Later in the meeting he also expressed frustration with the fact that the Planning is not given the same opportunity as Zoning to not review the application in the middle of the summer. He characterized the Statute as being blind to the size of the application. Mr. Peck noted that extensions are up to the applicant and he did not recommend Planning extending their decision past 9/24. Although the hearing needs to be concluded within 35 days, technically the Zoning Commission could open and close the hearing in the same night and Planning would want their comments on the record. Mr. Peck will ask, but emphasized the ripple effect that results from trying to arrange for another extension (i.e., applicant is also trying to schedule their team of people).

Chairman Loomis suggested the outcome of the PDD discussions will be a big determinant as to how this application moves forward and will provide the regulatory framework by which to review it. Commissioner Houlihan suggested this application has already been submitted and yet the PDD regulation has not yet been adopted. Mr. Peck noted that in order for zone change requests to be accepted they have to be deemed acceptable by the town. Unlike applications that are submitted prior to a moratorium and are not subject to the conditions of the moratorium, if the PDD regulation is approved the dynamic of this application will change.

In response to Commissioner Drake, Mr. Peck noted that by Statute the Zoning Commission has 35 days to close the public hearing unless extended another 30 days by the applicant. Zoning would then have 65 days from the time they close their public hearing in order to make a decision. Commissioner Mead questioned what the result would be if the Planning Commission physically can not process the large quantity of information to the point people are comfortable by 9/24. Mr. Peck stated that if Planning cannot come up with a formal recommendation it will be tantamount to an approval. Mr. Peck suggested dividing the Commission into subcommittees addressing the various planning issues (i.e., transportation, economics, etc.) in order to process the information more efficiently. In order to give Planning more time to study the materials in depth, Commissioner Jansen suggested requesting the public and groups such as SHARE to consolidate their thoughts and avoid multiple people repeating the same issues. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested the Commission should want to hear what every person who comes in has to say. Commissioner Cole suggested some sort of compromise is needed. Chairman Loomis asked the Commissioners to come up with suggestions on how to find that compromise and bring them to the next meeting.

In response to Commissioner Mead, Commissioner Jansen noted he was still waiting to hear back from the Chief with regards to 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. Commissioner Mead offered whatever assistance he could provide in the matter.