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 Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Ferguson Jansen, Susan Bednarcyk, Carol Cole, Gerry Post, Mark Drake and Julie Meyer. Also in attendance were Howard Beach, Conservation Officer, as well as other interested parties.

Ms. Bruun gave a brief history of her property and talked about her family and children growing up in Simsbury. She stated that she would like to create another lot in order to afford another family the benefits of living in Simsbury.

Mark Kement of Sanderson & Washburn, stated that this property is approximately 4.3 acres and is located on the north side of Weatherly Road on a cul-de-sac. The property is wooded with a sloping gradient going from a south to north direction. The soils are a medium coarse sand with a loamy sub-soil, which would be adequate for a septic system. Mr. Kement stated that the property also has a band of wetlands, which were flagged last year by a soil scientist. The majority of the activity that is associated with this proposal is within the 100’ regulated area with no disturbance to the wetlands.

Mr. Kement stated that the proposal is to re-subdivide the property, creating an additional building lot. Lot #1, which is the existing house lot, will be 1.55 acres, and Lot #2, which is the additional building lot, will be 1.19 acres. This property is located in an R-40 Zone, with a minimum requirement of 40,000 s.f. Both lots also meet the frontage requirement, which is 200’.

Mr. Kement stated that each lot is designed to accommodate a single family dwelling, a driveway, a primary septic system, as well as a future septic reserve area. The septic locations and soil suitabilities have been reviewed and approved by the Farmington Valley Health District.

Regarding the open space, Mr. Kement stated that the 20% open space requirement yields 0.86 acres, which is the requirement for this property. After viewing the surrounding areas, they expanded the open space area for this property to be 1.58 acres. In response to a question by Commissioner Meyer regarding how much of the open space would be wetlands, Mr. Kement stated that all but .5 acres are wetlands.

Attorney Donohue stated that he did receive a letter in opposition of this proposal from Christina and Stephen Gellman. He stated that the Gellman’s have the same types of soils that this additional lot has and they are in even closer proximity to the wetlands. Although he appreciates their letter of concern, all of the environmental considerations, including proximity to the wetlands, already exist on the Gellman’s property.

Aaron Sillari, 8 Newbury Court, stated his concerns regarding tearing down the forest in this area that the hawks are currently living in. He also stated that this lot slants downward, and he feels that the wetlands are encroaching even more toward his yard since all of the recent rain. If the trees are torn down, he believes that more water will go down toward the wetlands and there will be greater consequences. Mr. Sillari asked the Commission to take the time to study this area in greater detail.

Brad Cook, 15 Newbury Court, questioned if the frontage calculations that were presented included the area along the bike path. Mr. Kement stated that when a lot is on a cul-de-sac, the frontage is measured along the building line, which is the 50-foot setback from the arch of the curve.

Mike Rogers, 12 Weatherly Road, stated that there is an easement for drainage on this property. Mr. Kement stated that there is a pipe and headwall and stated that it discharges along the eastern border of the existing lot.

The Planning Commission discussed times for a site walk and agreed to meet at the cul-de-sac on Saturday, March 15, 2008, at 10 a.m. Mr. Kement will also be at this site walk to identify markers on the property for the Commission. Chairman Loomis stated that the Commission members are allowed to talk to the representatives of the applicant, although they should refrain from talking to anyone else who joins them.

Chairman Loomis referred to the Connecticut General Statute 8-3a. He stated that Simsbury has separate Zoning and Planning Commissions operating under the General Statutes. He also referred to the Connecticut Practice Series and read portions to the Commission.

Chairman Loomis stated that a public hearing for the Zoning Commission is scheduled for April 7, 2008. He stated that the Planning Commission has 35 days, from today, to have a public hearing, although they could ask the applicant to extend the timeframe if needed. Chairman Loomis did not feel that this would be necessary. He felt that this Commission could make their referral to the Zoning Commission within the allotted 35 days.

Mr. Beach stated that the PDD that was submitted by Konover is identical to Mr. Peck’s newest draft, except for an addition under Section H., Development Standards. Konover has added Items 5 & 6 to this section. Commissioner Jansen asked Mr. Beach for clarification for Item 6 regarding the 1,600 linear feet. Mr. Beach could not answer this question, but stated that he would get clarification for the Commission.

Commissioner Meyer questioned which Town’s regulations Mr. Peck used to draft the latest PDD. Mr. Beach stated that he will make copies of what Mr. Peck used and distribute that information to the Commission.

Chairman Loomis stated that he feels the Charrette process was not explained properly to the Commission or to the public. For many people, this is a new concept. He believes that there are still a lot of questions and people still need to be educated about the process and the benefits that will result.

Regarding this cost of the Charrette, Commissioner Cole stated that there may be other options or alternatives. She stated that it may be possible to use the services of a graduate school, such as Yale, although, this would need to be set up well in advance. Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that if not for the Charrette, the Commission might use their services for something else and should keep them in mind. Commissioner Meyer stated that she would only want to use the services of the graduate school as a last resort for the Charrette. She feels that the Charrette should be done by professionals.

After reading the draft letter, Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that she would like to see something in the letter regarding obtaining grants to help pay for the Charrette. This would fit into the second prerequisite. The Commission discussed the language to add to the letter regarding identifying and applying for applicable grants.

Commissioner Post stated his concerns about not having the land owners on board with the Charrette initiative. He feels they are a big part of this process. He also feels that people need to be educated regarding the process. Regarding how they could educate residents, Commission Cole suggested that they use SCTV more to educate the public with a possible ½ hour segment on the television. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested a mailer be sent out to all residents in order to educate them about the process.

Commissioner Jansen stated he does not feel that a Charrette is necessary. He feels that the PDD is the driving force because there is now a timeframe involved. He also agrees with Commissioner Post regarding that the land owners of the properties involved are not interested in having other people tell them what the market should be or how to develop their land. Commissioner Jansen also stated his thoughts regarding an alternative. There could be a broad based group of people formed consisting of 2 members of each Land Use Commission, the BOE and BOS, and also Town staff. They could take the Center Zone Regulations, the POCD and the Zoning Regulations and could do the same job quicker than and as effective as a Town Charrette. Although he supports implementation, he does not feel that the Charrette is the right way to do that.

Regarding the draft letter, Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested adding to the educational campaign with examples, such as a market analysis, traffic study, and economic impact. She feels they should also state the resulting benefits to the Town and developers. Commissioner Meyer stated her concerns that if too much is added to this letter, it might not get read.

Chairman Loomis stated that the prerequisite aspect to the draft letter is very important. There was a consensus from the Commission that more education is needed, cost information is needed, and the Route 10 corridor study needs to be committed to.

Commissioner Meyer made a motion to adopt the revised proposed letter to the Board of Selectmen in support of the Charrette initiative as amended by this Commission during discussions tonight. Commissioner Bednarcyk seconded the motion. Commissioners Meyer, Bednarcyk, Cole and Loomis approved the motion. Commissioners Jansen and Post were opposed.

Commissioner Post offered edits on Page 2. He stated that comments and questions he made regarding if it would be a conflict for Board members to participate in the Charrette process were not in the minutes. It was determined that the Clerk would go back to the recording and add that information into the February 26^th minutes.

Commissioner Drake stated his concerns regarding the Working Group trying to formulate a PDD strategy. He questioned why Mr. Peck would take it upon himself to work on a draft PDD without the Group’s input. Mr. Beach explained that it was the decision by the Town Attorney who strongly suggested that the Town not move forward with the Working Group. The Commission continued to discuss this issue.

The Commission discussed when Attorney Burns could come in to make his presentation before this Commission. His presentation is approximately 1 hour long after which he would take approximately another ½ hour for questions. After some discussion, the Commission decided that because their March 25^th agenda was very full, it would be best to have this workshop at their April 8^th meeting.

The Commission discussed the Meadowood Triangle. Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that if the Town does not vote to purchase this property, it will go back to an HOD Zone. She questioned if it would have to go through remediation.

Chairman Loomis stated that there was more soil testing done recently where they found levels of Chlorodane, which suggests more testing needs to be done. Mr. Beach stated he was unaware of this. He was told that there were only two small exceedances on the entire site, which were very minor. Chairman Loomis stated that the at the BOS meeting last night, the context of the report was that the only use that could be presented for the land with no issues was as open space. The Commission continued to discuss this issue.

Chairman Loomis stated that the Planning Commission would hold a special meeting on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 regarding Capital projects and bonding implications. Another special meeting would be held on April 1, 2008 to continue their discussion regarding the PDD and to try and craft a referral.

Regarding the PDD process, Kirsten Griebel, 7 Caryn Lane, questioned if the Planning Commission would be holding a public hearing. Chairman Loomis stated that they were not planning on holding a public hearing, although they will be discussing this issue at their special meeting on April 1^st. Ms. Griebel questioned that because there will not be a public hearing, if the Planning Commission would take written comment into consideration. Mr. Beach will be looking into the issue of public input.