PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 14, 2008
SPECIAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman John Loomis called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Ferguson Jansen, Susan Bednarcyk, Carol Cole, Charles Houlihan, Gerry Post, and Julie Meyer. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, Emil Dahlquist, Chairman of Design Review Board, as well as other interested parties.
II. SEATING OF ALTERNATES
There were none.
III. DISCUSSION OF THE CHARRETTE PROCESS INITIATIVE
The Zoning Commission’s 2/4/2008 Meeting
The Scheduled Combined Meeting on 2/20/2008
Chairman Loomis stated that Mary Glassman introduced the idea of a Charette at the meeting on February 4th. Dwight Merriam and Mr. Peck were also in attendance at that meeting.
Mr. Peck stated that the First Selectman made a presentation about the effort that she is proposing to talk about a Charrette for 3 areas in Town (the center of Town, the north end and the south end). There will be a meeting on February 20, 2008, with members of the BOS, BOF, along with the other land use Commissions to discuss this issue. The process will be explained and they will also talk about other Charrettes in other areas and what their results were.
Mr. Peck stated that someone from CRCOG will be in attendance at this meeting to talk about the fact that the Route 10 corridor joins these 3 areas of Town together and what the possibility would be for updating or revising the Route 10 corridor study at the same time in conjunction with the Charrette. Mr. Peck stated that this meeting will provide as much information in a relatively concentrated period of time regarding all of the various aspects of the Charrette. They would like to facilitate as much information as possible. There are a variety of views as to whether or not this should go forward, how it should go forward and the costs associated with it.
Mr. Dahlquist stated that Mary Glassman was a part of the 1998 Charrette and is familiar with the process. Also, under the advice of Victor Dover, consideration needs to be made to all 3 areas of Town. He feels that they should put more emphasis on the Town Center than the other two areas. Chairman Loomis stated that the POCD also emphasizes the Town Center.
Commissioner Jansen stated that there was a great deal of discussion at the Economic Development Commission meeting this morning about the priority of the corridor study, the PDD and the Charrette and how they should be aligned. The EDC felt that nothing can really happen in the north and south ends without the Route 10 corridor study being done.
Commissioner Meyer stated she supports the Charrette. She feels that “smart growth” is a term that is being used loosely among many people in different fields. She would like to see what Simsbury’s definition of “smart growth” is. She feels that properly defining and incorporating the principles of “smart growth” would help ensure the preservation of small towns, such as Simsbury. Commissioner Meyer stated that a Charrette would strengthen Simsbury’s center, but would also clearly define what the Town does and does not want regarding development. She urged the Board of Finance and the Board of Selectman to support the funding for the Charrette. She then gave several websites addresses which give information regarding Charrettes in other Towns in Connecticut. Commissioner Bednarcyk agreed that it is important to educate the community while showing them the strengths of a Charrette and including the economic driver of it.
Possible Scheduling of Form-Based CD Presentation
Emil Dahlquist stated that the scheduling of the form-based CD presentation would be done separately and not shown at the February 20th meeting. He stated that the CD presentation is a recording of an American Association Planning Seminar in California. The seminar was put together by 3 architects and 1 planner. They broke the seminar down into 3 different sections. The first section was a comparison of current zoning regulations vs. form based regulations and why it is important to replace the current zoning regulations. The second section showed examples of where this was done. The third section was how to implement this and also how it works. Mr. Dahlquist stated that the CD was very informative, although each Commission would approach these issues differently.
Commissioner Houlihan stated that a joint viewing with all of the Commissions would be good because questions from different perspectives would be useful to all Boards and Commission. Mr. Dahlquist suggested that each Commission watch the CD separately, but then come together as one big group to discuss it.
Chairman Loomis stated that he would like to set up a meeting, whether joint or individual, to view the CD. Mr. Peck suggested that one viewing be set up for Tuesday, February 19th at 5:30 p.m. Other opportunities would be set up for those Commission and Board members who could not attend.
IV. DISCUSSION OF THE STATUS OF THE DRAFT PDD
Mr. Peck stated that a copy of the draft PDD has been given to the Zoning Commission. It was discussed at their last meeting, and will again be discussed at their next meeting in order to give Commission members time to read through the document. Depending on what happens at the meeting on February 20th, the Zoning Commission will still have three options: 1) decide to set a hearing on that Regulation and go forward; 2) modify the draft and then set a public hearing date; or 3) decide not to go forward. Statutory timeframes do not apply to a Commission initiated amendment. The Zoning Commission could also run a parallel track to the Charrette and could put the PDD on a hearing scheduled to go forward. They do not have to approve it; they could hold a hearing to get input and then do what they
think is best. Mr. Peck stated that the draft PDD is available if any of the Commission members would like a copy.
Mr. Peck stated that the 1998 Charrette is posted on the Town’s website for people to review.
Commissioner Houlihan asked Mr. Peck to explain the history of the draft PDD process. The Commission had concerns whether the Working Committee could continue its work. There was a question as to whether or not this particular forum was acceptable under FOI. At that time, the draft PDD was finished and it was decided that the Working Committee would not meet again until this question was resolved. Mr. Peck stated that is would have taken FOI approximately 6 months to answer this question if asked for a declaratory ruling. Instead of waiting, Hiram Peck finished the draft. Chairman Loomis stated that the Working Committee suspended their work after River Oaks brought in their application. The Commission continued to discuss the Working Committee regarding FOI. They talked about what is and is not
allowed regarding pre-application discussions.
Mr. Peck stated that there are approximately 40 other Towns in Connecticut that have a PDD-type Regulation. These were used by Hiram Peck to help draft Simsbury’s draft PDD.
Commissioner Bednarcyk motioned to move Item VI. next on the agenda. Commissioner Houlihan seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
VI. CGS Sec. 8-24 referral regarding the possible municipal purchase of land which is part of the Meadowood Planned Residential Community located on Hoskins Road
Commissioner Jansen stated that he would be recusing himself from this discussion.
Brian Smith, of Robinson and Cole, and Special Counsel to the Town of Simsbury Planning, Zoning and Conservation Commissions for the Meadowood procedures and for the Town itself, spoke to the Commission. Mr. Smith stated that he is here regarding the 8-24 referral. The application has come before these Commissions and the Water Pollution Control Authority in 1999 and 2000, which were rejected for developments at that time. Litigation ensued starting in 2000 and is technically still going on. He stated that they have come to an agreement that last summer, this Commission and the Zoning and Conservation Commissions agreed to certain terms of settlement. One of the aspects of this settlement agreement was the possible purchase of this “Triangle” (bounded by Barndoor Hills Road, Hoskins Road and Firetown
Road) and Parcel D2, which forms part of the Wildlife Corridor. The proposed terms of the Open Space purchase agreement is what is before the Planning Commission tonight. He stated that, in summary, the proposed purchase is for approximately 77 acres of land for $2.7 million, assuming that the voters were to approve the referendum in May 2008. If the Town of Simsbury chooses not to have the referendum, or the voters turn it down, then the Town could, as an option, have another referendum in November 2008. If this is done, then the purchase price will increase by $100,000. Under the current terms of the agreement that have been presented, the terms call for payment of the purchase price over a term of 5 years. There is nothing to preclude the Town of Simsbury from paying it all at one time, although, there is the option to pay it in $500,000 increments, with the largest sum being paid in the last year. Mr. Smith stated that there are also a
number of other terms and conditions in the agreement, which he would be glad to discuss, if the Commission would like.
Chairman Loomis stated that he would like to first deal with the terms of the agreement and then go to a draft motion for the Commission’s consideration. The Commission members were given, prior to this meeting, a copy of the Open Space Purchase Terms – Exhibit to Settlement Agreements for their review.
Chairman Loomis asked Mr. Smith to discuss, “proposed permanent open space” and, “permanently restricted”, as stated in paragraph one of this document. Mr. Smith explained that proposed permanent open space is the title of Sheet 1.4 on the Plans that have been provided for the Commission. He showed this plan to the Commission. He also stated that permanently restricted means that this is being sold to the Town if the Town chooses to purchase it with certain restrictions. He stated that it is to be open space with some exceptions that are set forth later in this document. This land would be sold with open space restrictions, which typically are found for conservation easements, although they are willing to allow active recreational uses on this property, along with certain structures that
would support this. Commissioner Post questioned if this restriction was on the triangle and on the conservation easement also. Mr. Smith stated that the restrictions would be on both.
Commissioner Meyer stated that in the document, it states that if the Town does not proceed with the purchase of this parcel, the HOD Zone designation approved and confirmed by the agreement changes to the Town’s R40, which means that it could be developed. She questioned what an HOD Zone was. Mr. Smith stated that HOD is the zone that currently occupies the site. There is a “housing opportunity” development zone, which is the one that was proposed and ultimately decided by the Court over the Town’s objection that allows for affordable housing at a very high density. Currently, the entire parcel is zoned HOD. If the Town does not purchase the property, then the property would revert to R40. He stated that part of the settlement that was agreed upon last summer, in essence, states
that the Planning Commission approved the subdivision of the Triangle itself for 26 parcels if it does not go forward.
Regarding agriculture, Mr. Smith stated that this use was never a focus of past discussions. When this was first considered, he stated that River Bend and Griffin were not anxious to allow any kind of use other than restricted open space. Mr. Smith referred to Page 6 of the document, which states, “agricultural and farming uses which uses are expressly and specifically restricted to floral and vegetable farming…”. Commissioner Post questioned if this would preclude someone from harvesting hay there or planting seasonal rye. Mr. Smith stated that he might be able to add the word “grain” into that section, if the Commission would like to make this clearer. There was a consensus that the Commission would like the word “grain” added under Section f. Use of Sale Parcel (a).
Commissioner Houlihan questioned if the land could be used as a soccer field. He stated that the document makes reference to the conservation restrictions within the terms of the Statute on Page 6, where it talks about the use. Mr. Smith stated that the land could be used for playing fields or passive recreational facilities such as walking trails or picnic areas. Commissioner Meyer questioned where parking would be accommodated for playing fields. Mr. Smith stated that there are areas for two parking areas for up to 75 cars each on a gravel base. A question regarding barns was made by Commissioner Houlihan. He questioned if there are barns there, is there an affirmative obligation on the Town to take them down, and if there is not, how can they be used consistent with the restrictions. Chairman
Loomis stated that there is currently one barn on the north side of Firetown Road. Mr. Smith stated that there is no affirmative language to take the barn down, although it is inconsistent with the conservation restriction. He stated that there is nothing to prevent the current owner from taking the barn down before they convey the land to the Town. Chairman Loomis stated that if the intent is to put R40 development on the south side of Firetown, it is extremely unlikely that they would want to keep the barn. Commissioner Post stated that he feels the barn is part of the historical character of Simsbury. Commissioner Cole questioned if there would be some liability to the Town if the barn was used for public use. She also stated that she agrees with Commission Post. Mr. Smith stated that it was up to the Commission if they wanted to raise this issue. Commissioner Houlihan stated that the Town will want to purchase this land with the
fewest restrictions so that whatever seems appropriate in the future, there is sufficient flexibility to use that land to meet those needs. Regarding the barn, Chairman Loomis stated that there was a consensus from the Commission to pursue retention of the barn. Commissioner Houlihan stated that if the Town were going to keep the barn, he suggested that some reference to uses for preservation of historical resources be in the agreement. Chairman Loomis stated that there are other uses for the barn and they should not limit the use. Mr. Smith stated that regarding this issue, he would pursue that the Town retain the barn as a structure on the property and the preservation of its use for its original intended agricultural use or historic preservation. He stated that the Town could keep the barn and add these provisions, although this would not keep the Town from then deciding later that they do not want the barn in that location. This would allow
the Town the option of keeping the barn or not. Commissioner Houlihan suggested that a reference should be made to other civic or public uses for the barn. The Commission continued a short discussion regarding the possible fate of the other barns in Town.
Chairman Loomis stated that on Page 13 of the document under Temporary Easement, it states that, “River Bend shall have the right of access, by foot or vehicle through the northerly most corner of Parcel D2”. Chairman Loomis stated that although he does not have a problem with this, he asked Mr. Smith to elaborate on this issue. Mr. Smith stated that they have bargained for 12 years, which is the maximum time of their build-out. He stated that this is conveyed on Page 14 under (vii).
Mr. Peck stated that he is hopeful, if those three changes can be made, that the Commission can approve the language they have in front of them tonight. Chairman Loomis questioned if there was a time concern between now and February 26th or if this could be done at their next meeting. Mr. Peck stated that the Board of Selectman is anxious to get the referral back and the developer is anxious to get this cleared up. He stated that if it does not cause any undo concern on the Commission’s part, he recommends moving ahead with those conditions. Mr. Smith stated that he also recommends the Commission approve this agreement with those conditions.
Regarding the current draft resolution, Mr. Peck stated that this document specifies that the Planning Commission received the referral from the Board of Selectman, the open space purchase terms of the exhibit, as well as the Open Space map. It also specifies the number of acreage in Parcel E as 47.66 acres and Parcel D2 as 30.6 acres. The document also stated that it is in keeping with the POCD, specifically the open space chapter. He stated that the Plan shows this as a proposed open space corridor for a significant portion of the property and that it provides a corridor between Great Pond and McLean Game Refuge. It also states that the Commission finds that the open space addresses those portions of the Plan, specifically open space Policy 1, Objectives A and C, and Policy 3, Objectives A and B. It also states
that the agricultural resources chapter is applicable and that municipal acquisition would support agricultural resource Policy 1 and 2. Chairman Loomis suggested that the Commission members review these objectives, which they took time to do. Mr. Peck stated that the second page of the draft resolution states that the Commission acknowledges that the property has been tested previously and that presently, there is no indication that there is any remaining significant contamination. However, the Board of Selectman did authorize the Town’s environmental expert to conduct a final testing. Therefore, the recommendations that the Commission recommends in this acquisition of the property, Parcels E and D2, are that if the final testing finds the property substantially clean and suitable for acquisition and the purposes that are set out in the agreement they would recommend that the Town acquire the property. However, if the final testing does not
indicate that it is clean, then the Commission would recommend that the Town not acquire the property.
Mr. Smith stated that in the resolve clause on Page 2, he feels that they should add, “that the Simsbury Planning Commission recommends”. Also, at the end of that sentence, which ends with “open space agreement”, he suggested stating, “and if Section f, entitled use of the sale parcel is clarified to indicate that vegetable farming shall include farming of grains and grasses but not tobacco and that generally, the existing barn on Parcel E shall be included as part of the sale and that it may be used for its original agricultural use or retained as an historic structure and used as such provided that it is maintained in good condition.” Commissioner Meyer questioned if they should, where they are referencing the POCD, reference their historic resource section where they could reference Policy 2
on Page 35. The Commission agreed with both Mr. Smith and Commissioner Meyer.
Commissioner Houlihan made a motion to adopt the resolution as amended including the addition of the historical resources, Policy 2, and to include the language provided by Counsel with respect to the preservation of the barn, the expansion of the uses to the growing of grains and grasses and that the barn could be used for ordinary and customary agricultural uses and for an historical resource. This is the basis for this Commission’s positive recommendation and that they authorize the Chairman to sign the final version of the resolution. Commissioner Post seconded the motion.
Chairman Loomis appointed Commissioner Cole as a regular member for voting purposes because Commission Jansen had recused himself and will not be taking part in this vote.
The motion was unanimously approved by Commissioners Post, Meyer, Bednarcyk, Loomis, Cole and Houlihan.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 22, 2008
Commissioner Houlihan motioned to approve the January 22, 2008. Commissioner Jansen seconded the motion.
Commissioners Meyer, Jansen, Bednarcyk and Chairman Loomis offered several changes to the minutes.
The motion to approve the minutes of January 22, 2008, as amended, were unanimously approved.
VII. STAFF REPORTS
Airport Study
Mr. Peck stated that the consultants are on track and that the procedure is going forward. There will be at least two more public meetings prior to the end of the study. The study should be done in approximately 4 months. At this point in time, there are a number of alternatives that they are looking at.
Chairman Loomis stated that the consultants that are doing the study are doing a great job.
Workshop re: The Planning Commission’s Responsibilities and Procedures
Mr. Peck stated that there is an organization called The Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies. He stated that they are based in Farmington. They are working with Commissions throughout the State, talking about responsibilities and procedures for Planning and Zoning Commissions and Zoning Boards of Appeal. He stated that Attorney Tom Burns offered to provide a workshop to the Commission at a low cost. He questioned if the Commission would be interested in having him come in to have a procedure and responsibilities discussion with the Commission with a time for questions. Mr. Peck feels that Attorney Burns has a great deal of experience with land use. This would be another point of view that this Commission might benefit from. Mr. Peck also stated that he has been well received in
other Towns regarding this discussion.
Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that another option could be having Michael Zizka come in to do a presentation on his book, “What’s Legally Required”. This book is sold through the DEP and she would like to see him come in to talk with the Commission as well as Attorney Burns.
The Commissioners agreed to have Attorney Burns come in to talk to the Commission at an upcoming meeting. Mr. Peck will make the arrangements.
VIII. COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
CRCOG Representation
Commissioner Drake will be attending the next meeting.
Simsbury Farms Complex Follow-Up – Gerry Post
Commissioner Post stated that there were certain questions raised at the last meeting regarding the Simsbury Farm Complex. He distributed a handout summarizing what the Simsbury Farms Commission does and their current annual report to the Commission. Commissioner Post stated that, in the past, the complex was maintained under the general fund, but is now currently maintained under the revenue fund. He also explained some of the items in the annual report regarding summer camps and programs, the ice rink, golf rates, the access road, etc. He stated that, regarding the Master Plan, there has been an upgrade in the parking. With the new access road, they will be trying to obtain more parking. Commissioner Post briefly talked about the main building. There are no definite plans regarding this issue,
although, there have been suggestions made.
Chairman Loomis questioned who staffs the programs and camps. Commissioner Post stated that Town staff and contractors work at these programs. Regarding a question by Commissioner Houlihan about the seasonal facility regarding the main building, Commissioner Post stated that the main building was built as a seasonal facility. Also, there is no insulation in that building. The improvements will include thermal windows and other improvements to the doors; the rest of the building will not get improvements. This will help until the new building is built. The building might eventually be torn down or they might possibly salvage the foundation or some aspects of the building.
Commissioner Post encouraged the members to look over the Plan to see that the Simsbury Farms Complex does have direction and they do follow a guide.
Public Audience or Public Participation at Planning Commission Meetings
Chairman Loomis stated that he is advocating for public participation that would be topic related. Many Commissioners had agreed with this at the last meeting. He suggested that, as a protocol, any person wishing to speak would be asked to identify himself/herself, and to keep their comments, which would be related to topics specific to that meeting’s agenda, to no more than 3 minutes. The Commission discussed this issue and how they have handled public participation in the past. Commissioner Cole stated that those rules should be altered if a large number of people on a major issue wanted to speak at a meeting. Commissioner Houlihan stated his concerns regarding if there were specific topics, but the Commission did not believe there was any relation to what someone wanted to speak about. He stated
they needed to be careful not to get accused of holding a hearing. They also need to be careful that they do not create issues for litigation or appeal. Commissioner Cole stated that because they do not have an attorney present at every meeting, Mr. Peck might be able to advise the Commission during public audience if needed.
Mr. Peck stated that this could and should be discussed with Attorney Burns when he comes before this Commission. Also, there is going to be another workshop for Commission members in the near future, where the Town Attorney or Special Land Use Counsel will be coming to talk to all of the Boards and Commissions on a variety of issues. They, again, should ask questions regarding the public audience issue. Mr. Peck agreed that if they were to have public audience that it should be kept to related topics only. Commissioner Meyer stated that until they get advice from Attorney Burns, they could invite public participation, related to agenda topics, at the discretion of the Chairman. Commissioner Post stated that they should err on the side of caution and not start public audience in case they are advised not to
have it. Commissioner Meyer stated that she believes it is a Commissioner’s right to allow a member of the public to speak. Commissioner Jansen reminded the Commission that many people already e-mail them when they have something to say. Commissioner Post stated that they should encourage people to contact them in this way. Chairman Loomis stated that he would tend toward having public audience, if it is topic related, and they can stop if they are advised to do so, although it will not be listed as a formal agenda item.
Procedure for the Nomination/Election of a Commission Secretary
Chairman Loomis stated that this will be on the February 26th and March 11th agendas. The actual process for nomination/election for Commission secretary would occur on March 25, 2008.
Commissioner Jansen stated that he would like to modify what Chairman Loomis has said by suggestion or motion, that they add an election of Chairman. He stated his reason for this is because he believes in term limits and he feels that other changes are good when there is a change in administration. He stated that under Chairman Loomis’ leadership, the Commission has leaned heavily toward conservation. He does not feel that they have gotten the message out that this Commission is also about development. He feels that the Planning Commission is at the point where it is giving a message that they really do not want anything to happen in this Town. He stated that this Commission has been very big on open space under the current leadership, but unconscientiously they may have made it seem that it is tough to do
things in Simsbury. He feels that this is partly because of the changing times and because of all of the open space they have purchased. He feels that when there is a change in administration, they should have an election for chairman as well. He continued to state that, in no way, is this personal against Chairman Loomis.
Commissioner Meyer stated that she respected Commissioner Jansen’s opinion, although, as a new member on this Commission, she stated that this proposed motion puts her in somewhat of an awkward position because of the timing. She does not feel that she would be able to vote in favor or against an election of Chairman of the Commission; she has only attended a few meetings and has not had sufficient time to judge leadership, regardless of who the person is holding the current position. Commissioner Cole felt that Commissioner Meyer had a valid point. She stated that if the Commission feels that, as part of the democratic process, election for Chairman should be held every so often, they should consider proposing term limits.
Chairman Loomis stated that the current rules provide that the Chairman and the Secretary serve at the pleasure of the members of the Commission. There is not much description beyond that. Anyone can make a motion at any time to have an election for the Chairman by nominating someone else to be Chairman. This would then be put on the agenda with the proper notices. He stated that this process would be the same as for secretary, although a motion would be needed and seconded to be put on the next agenda.
Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that she feels that this is a personal attack against Chairman Loomis. Commissioner Cole stated that she feels that this process will naturally cause ill feelings. She suggested that they either change the system or wait several months before calling for this election, in order for the new members to have a chance to get to know the Chairman and the members of the Commission.
Commissioner Houlihan suggested that this Commission update the by-laws; they were last updated in 1993. He does not feel that they provide many answers in their current state.
The Commission agreed to undertake and set in motion a process to review the administrative rules of this Commission within a two month period of time. Commissioner Bednarcyk did not agree that this was needed.
Commissioner Jansen motioned to have an election and to follow the same procedure for the Chairman as the Secretary. Chairman Houlihan seconded the motion.
Chairman Loomis stated that, with an incumbency and no immediate plans for him to resign or retire, it is tantamount to a removal of the Chairman. Commissioner Meyer agreed with Chairman Loomis. He has offered to discuss the policy and if there is no discussion, she feels that it would be a removal of the Chairman.
Commissioner Houlihan stated that it is always useful for the Commission to see where they are and to see where they are going.
The motion was approved by Commissioners Jansen, Houlihan and Post. Commissioners Meyer, Bednarcyk and Loomis were opposed. The motion did not pass.
Commissioner Jansen thanked Chairman Loomis for the way he handled this issue and stated that he looks forward to the discussions over the next several months regarding this issue.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Jansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Meyer and unanimously approved.
________________________________________
John Loomis, Chairman
| 
