PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 24, 2007
REGULAR MEETING
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, Ferguson Jansen, Susan Bednarcyk, and Darren Cunningham. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, and other interested parties.
II. SEATING OF ALTERNATES
None.
III. REVIEW AND CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD OF THE PROPOSED DIVISION OF addressStreetLAND ON WELDEN WAY
Mr. Peck presented the history of the addressStreetWelden Way parcel, as described in a memo from Town Attorney Robert DeCrescenzo. Attorney DeCrescenzo’s determination was that the proposed division of land does not constitute a subdivision.
As shown on the first map included in Attorney DeCrescenzo’s memo, the original property was divided into 2 parcels in 1951, which predated the current definition of subdivision. At that time, the regulations that had been in effect since 1941 required that a new street be created for it to be considered a subdivision. In 1947, the State legislature adopted a new definition of subdivision, which placeCitySimsbury subsequently adopted in 1954, and still remains today.
The proposed division of the property creates 3 parcels. Parcel #3 would be deeded to the Simsbury Land Trust for conservation purposes. Parcel #2, which contains the existing house, is to be conveyed to the United Methodist Church of Simsbury. Parcel #1 is to be distributed to others. Secretary Gardow asked whether the proposed cut to convey a portion of the property to SLT is not considered a cut. Attorney T.J. Donohue, representing the Simsbury Land Trust, responded that the regulations indicate a subdivision occurs when property is divided into 3 or more parcels not for the purpose of conservation. Mr. Peck confirmed Attorney DeCrescenzo’s opinion that the line between Parcel #1 and #2 constitutes a first cut based on the regulations in effect at the various points in the history of the land.
Mr. Peck indicated Attorney DeCrescenzo’s recommendation is that the Commission take action to confirm that this is not a subdivision. Attorney Barbara Taylor, representing Elaine Eno, Trustee for Ms. Welden, indicated such action would ensure that good title to the property be given to the beneficiaries. In response to Commissioner Bednarcyk, Attorney Taylor described the easements for access to the Land Trust parcel. Attorney Donohue noted that there is an existing travel path and that no new rights of way are being proposed.
Secretary Gardow motioned that, as stated in a 5/21/07 letter addressed to Howard Beach from Town Attorney Robert DeCrescenzo, Esq., the proposed division of land as directed by the Welden Trust does not require subdivision review because (a) the 13.2 acre portion to be distributed to the Simsbury Land Trust does not fall within the definition of a subdivision; and (b) the proposed division line between the 8.408 acre parcel and the 7.893 acre parcel meets the definition of a “First Cut”. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jansen and unanimously approved.
IV. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MEADOWOOD SOIL PLAN
A copy of the Soil Plan was distributed to the Commissioners highlighting the changes incorporated based on the suggestions of the Planning Commission. Chairman Loomis pointed out 2 additional changes that were not highlighted within Section 2.0 (i.e., the word ‘residential’) and 6.0 (i.e., CT licensed professional engineer).
Mr. Peck was unsure of the timing for the Court’s review of the settlement agreement.
V. RIVER OAKS
• Time Table
• Planned Development District
Mr. Peck indicated that in a memo dated 7/23/07 Dwight Merriam, Esq. recommended that the Commissions focus on the proposed Planned Development District first. He confirmed for Commissioner Jansen that the applicant has also received a copy of Attorney Merriam’s memo. The application is still set to go forward on 9/24/07 with the Zoning Commission’s public hearing on the applicant’s proposed PDD. At that time, Zoning will have the option of approving the proposed PDD text amendment, approving with modifications, or denying the application. Mr. Peck noted that he will provide copies of what Zoning will be reviewing to each Planning Commissioner prior to their 8/14 meeting.
Chairman Loomis noted that Attorney Merriam’s memo indicates that the applicant could choose to withdraw the PDD application due to the fact that there has been no wetlands application and that the preliminary site plan application is out of sequence. The memo indicates that since there is no PDD regulation currently in effect a conceptual site plan should accompany the change of zone application and therefore would be exempt from the Conservation Commission review. Chairman Loomis noted Attorney Merriam’s suggestion that a joint meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commissions could be held and limited to the PDD proposal alone. Mr. Peck agreed with that possibility but cautioned the Commission to approach conservatively and retain their 8/14 meeting date in case the joint meeting does not happen.
Chairman Loomis noted if a joint meeting were to be held the applicant could make their presentation, the public could give their input, and then the Commissions would go their separate ways for deliberations. Mr. Peck reiterated that all that will be on the table for discussion by all parties will be the applicant’s proposed PDD regulation. Further, considering the amendment is only 8 pages, Mr. Peck did not think it would take the Commission long to review. Commissioner Bednarcyk agreed with the idea of a joint meeting and requested that Town Counsel also be present for procedural questions, providing her with a comfort level as one of the Commissioners who has ultimate responsibility for the decision. Chairman Loomis echoed Commissioner Bednarcyk’s comments and other Commissioners agreed as well.
Mr. Peck indicated he should know in a few days whether a joint meeting would be amenable to Zoning and when that might happen.
• Participation Discussion
Secretary Gardow read into the record comments submitted via email from Commissioner Cole. She suggested the public submit their questions in writing to avoid unnecessary repetition and the taking up of valuable review time of the Commissioners to base their decision on facts and planning acumen. Commissioner Jansen agreed with avoiding unnecessary repetition and suggested, similar to a debate, the public submit questions on index cards that would then be collated into similar questions and comments. Chairman Loomis reiterated that the focus this time will be solely on the PDD text and placePlaceNamenot PlaceTypeRiver Oaks in general.
In Commissioner Bednarcyk’s opinion, the Planning Commission is here to serve the public. She understands the repetition, but suggested there should be a way to tally similar comments and questions. In her opinion, a public meeting should be held in September rather than August. Commissioner Cunningham agreed there should be public participation noting that, although to some extent the Commission already knows what the opinions are, there will probably be some new ideas as well. However, he did not agree with the tally suggestion indicating that the determination should be made on the strength of the content of the comments and questions. He agreed with Commissioner Cole’s caution at the previous meeting to avoid drowning out the substance of the discussion with repetition. Commissioner Jansen suggested having
the joint hearing and then a separate meeting the next night for public comment and questions. He indicated that groups such as SHARE may even have an organized response based on the presentation. Chairman Loomis stated, in general he leans toward more public participation rather than less, but agreed time could be limited or the process streamlined. Mr. Peck stressed that written factual presentations would be best and that the importance of the contents far outweighs the number of comments submitted.
Until the decision on the joint meeting is made, it was agreed to keep the 8/14 meeting scheduled, then hold another meeting on 9/11 in order to receive public comment and then reserve 9/18 for the referral to Zoning. Another meeting could also be scheduled prior to the 9/24 public hearing.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 10, 2007.
Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the 7/10/07 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bednarcyk and unanimously approved.
VII. STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Peck confirmed for Chairman Loomis that public notice on the 9/19/07 public hearing with regard to adoption of the Plan will be done to both meet and exceed the technical requirements for such notices. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested also placing some type of blinking notice on the website.
• Proposed Fees Ordinance
Chairman Loomis noted he spoke at last night’s Board of Selectmen meeting with regard to the recent 5-1 Planning Commission vote in favor of the ordinance but ensuring there is an opportunity for independent studies along with peer review. He noted for the BOS that the Planning Commission would only request an independent consultant if there is an adequate need and would not proceed with such a request lightly. He indicated for Commissioner Jansen that the ordinance was not on the BOS agenda and therefore no action was taken. Mr. Peck noted that by the next BOS meeting the Town Attorney will come with alternatives on issues such as the definition of “large and complex” (i.e., using a definition with words or some type of quantitative approach such as number of proposed parking spaces). Commissioner
Bednarcyk expressed her frustration with the BOS’s need for such detail and indicated that “large and complex” does not seem that hard to figure out. Mr. Peck confirmed for Chairman Loomis that the 110% figure for the fee overage repayment remained in the draft.
VIII. COMMUNICATIONS
CRCOG
Chairman Loomis noted there will be no CRCOG meetings until September, which he is scheduled to attend.
Town provided email accounts
With regard to Brandon Robertson’s memo 7/5 memo, Mr. Peck noted that having a town provided email account may not completely eliminate the Freedom of Information issues that face the Commissioners. It can make the process cleaner, but if an FOI requestor does not feel that the town-provided email account sufficiently satisfies their request they can gain access to private email accounts as well. He referenced Meadowood and how close it came to actually seizing hard drives in order to gain access to information regarding the case.
Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested setting up a procedure for receiving information and ensuring everything is included in an applicant’s file, including emails to individual Commissioners. Mr. Peck noted that all the information received on an application goes into the file and then Town Staff makes a decision as to what the Commissioners receive based on what is relevant to making a decision. Chairman Loomis noted when he receives correspondence he forwards it on to Mr. Peck to include it in the file. Commissioner Jansen suggested having one email account for the public to submit to that would then somehow distribute to each Commissioner.
Commissioner Cunningham motioned that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Selectmen to embrace the proposal to provide elected members of boards and commission, including alternates, with Town provided e-mail accounts. The motion was seconded by Secretary Gardow and unanimously approved.
Miscellaneous
For their information, Mr. Peck distributed information to the Commissioners on a recent court case decided on in placePlaceNameFairfield PlaceTypeCounty regarding traffic issues related to subdivisions.
In response to Commissioner Jansen, Mr. Peck noted that although there are no real court cases with regard to evaluating an application based on its economic value or impact he will provide copies of papers written on the subject.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Jansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Secretary Gardow and unanimously approved.
___________________________________________
Ernest B. Gardow, Secretary
| 
