Simsbury, CT - Zoning Commission Minutes

MINUTES – SPECIAL JOINT MEETING

ZONING COMMISSION,

PLANNING COMMISSION

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY

The meeting opened at timeMinute10Hour197:10 PM in the Simsbury High School Auditorium, addressStreet34 Farms Village Road, CitySimsbury, StateCT. Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, was Moderator for the meeting. Also present were Howard Beach, Zoning Enforcement and Conservation Officer for the Town of Simsbury; Gordon Brookman, the Town’s environmental consultant; Brian Smith, representative of Robinson and Cole, Special Counsel to the Town and the Commissions; and Debra Sweeney, clerk. Representatives, engineers and counsel for the applicant were also present.

Planning Commission

John Loomis, Chairman of the Planning Commission, called the Special Meeting to order for the Planning Commission. The following members were present: Susan Bednarcyk, Ferguson Jansen, Charles Houlihan, Darren Cunningham and Alternates Carol Cole and Mark Drake. Chairman Loomis appointed Mark Drake to serve as alternate for Ernest Gardow and Carol Cole to serve as alternate for Ferguson Jenson, who was present but recused himself.

Zoning Commission

Austin Barney, Chairman of the Zoning Commission, called the Special Meeting to order for the Zoning Commission. The following members were present: Garrett Delehanty, Patricia Askham, Joseph Grace and Madeleine Gilkey.

Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency

Richard Miller, Chairman of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency, called the Special Meeting to order for the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency. The following members were present: Margery Winters, Andrew Bucknam and Margaret Sexton.

II. PUBLIC MEETING

The purpose of the meeting was 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 placePlaceNameapplicant/owners PlaceTypeRiver Bend Associates, Inc. and Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc. and the North Simsbury Coalition, Inc. for Meadowood, a planned residential community located on the property bordering Hoskins Road,

Firetown, Road, Barndoor Hills Road, Holcomb Street and County Road in the HOD Zone and shown on the Simsbury Assessor’s 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.

Attorney Smith gave a brief history of the Meadowood application, indicating that his firm was retained in 1999 when the application was first submitted and explained the post-settlement agreement that has been worked on between the various parties. Attorney Smith stated that the proposed agreement is a global agreement and the parties to it are: the three placeCitySimsbury commissions, River Bend Associates, Inc. (owner of the 363 acres in north placeCitySimsbury known as “the Meadowood proposal”), placePlaceNameGriffin PlaceTypeLand and Nurseries, Inc., (the operator) and the North Simsbury Coalition, Inc. (the intervener). Attorney Smith indicated that, under the rules of court, all parties to the agreement must agree for the settlement to be achieved. At that point, court approval of the settlements must be sought.

Originally, in 1999, the proposal that came before the commissions was to develop a 640-unit affordable housing development on the 363 acres and included a text change to the Simsbury zoning regulations that would allow for a new zone called the “Housing Opportunity Development” zone (HOD), a map change for the land to be changed from R-40 and R-80 to the HOD zone, and for a site plan to allow for the 640 units to be built. There were also coordinate agency applications to the Wetlands Commission for proposed regulated wetlands activity, to the Planning Commission for a subdivision, and to the WPCA for a transfer of sewer allocation. None of the proposals were accepted by the various commissions.

Under the Affordable Housing Statute, section 830(g), the applicant, if there is a denial in the zoning and planning applications, has a right to resubmit to take into consideration issues that were raised by the commissions, which River Bend Associates did in 2000, and proposed a 371-unit development. The settlement plan currently being proposed is for 299 units, which is significantly less dense and also includes a proposal for an open space area to be sold to the Town for a fee simple, as well as other open spaces being donated to the Town.

The proposal for the open space purchase by the Town is for 75.50+/- acres to be purchased by the Town for $2.7 million, an allocation of funds which would need to go to public referendum under the Town Charter. If the voters were to deny this expenditure, there is an alternative provision in the settlement which would allow the developer to add an additional 26 units in the triangle piece of the property and the portion to the east of addressStreetBarndoor Hills Road would revert to the R-40 zone to be developed under the typical application process.

Another key component of the settlement involved the Town’s concern with environmental remediation of the site, which was formerly used to grow tobacco, and the chemicals dieldrine and chlordane were known to be present. There was disagreement as to whether all incidences of these chemicals had been properly found and what was the precise and proper way to remediate what had been found. Since 2004, there has been further study made of the property by the applicant and its engineers, Fuss and O’Neill. There have also been discussions with Gordon Brookman, Howard Beach and others to determine how to best locate and remediate for these chemicals.

Finally, there will be a covenant in the agreement that, no matter what the zoning is, the developer can not build more than 299 units (or 325 units should the open space land purchase not be approved by the voters).

Attorney Smith gave an explanation of the site remediation plan under the proposed settlement. One of the key components during all negotiations with the commissions, the developer and the intervener, was an insistence that there be complete site remediation prior to the commencement of any construction. The site had been subject to historic pesticide application and Fuss & O’Neill started studying the site in 1994, taking various samples (mostly on the eastern side) before bringing the application forward in 1999. placePlaceNameGriffin PlaceTypeLand and River Bend, when submitting the original application, agreed to use the Connecticut RSR’s, which are state standards that they said they would voluntarily comply with. In 1998/99, soil mixing tests were made and the commissions’ view was that soil mixing was a relatively new and unproven technology and, therefore, caused a number of concerns for both the environmental consultant and the commission members. In 2004/05, soil mixing pilot tests indicated that the concentrations previously observed had much improved since 1999/2000. Hydrological investigations were made and the results of the new testing were presented to the Town in April 2005.

Mr. Brookman was then engaged to review Fuss & O’Neill’s report and provide commentary as to if it was acceptable to him or the Town. Fuss & O’Neill’s report indicated that soil mixing was no longer required, although certain problematic areas remained such as the area known as “Hoskins 7” as well as other areas in the northeastern portion. In 2000, the Town had hired Dr. Anagnostou of the placePlaceTypeUniversity of PlaceNameConnecticut, who also indicated that much more sampling than had been provided by the applicant needed to be done. The new protocols were required to be applied to the site before the Town would consider entering into a possible settlement. Mr. Brookman further refined these protocols by asking for more horizontal and deeper samples to confirm that the observed decrease in contaminants had not been due to them migrating closer to the ground water.

The new tests involved excavations to 4-foot depths in the problem areas and showed that the dieldrin concentrations had decreased and that there was no ground water contamination. It was then determined that 10.3 acres in the northeastern portion did require relocation/off-site disposal, but that soil mixing was no longer necessary. Another issue under consideration was the sediments in the Hoskins 7 area and whether to allow them to remain and not disturb them or to excavate them out and replace the soil; the latter was determined to be the more appropriate approach. The observed decrease in chlordane concentration was thought to be due to evaporation and sublimation (change in its chemical form), which concurs with literature indicating that this chemical has a half-life of 3.3-4 years.

According to Attorney Smith, Fuss & O’Neill has developed a soil relocation and removal management plan for the 10.3 acres of soil to be relocated and 5.6 acres to be removed from the Hoskins 7 area and disposed of off-site. The plan details dust control and air and dust monitoring (a concern of the North Simsbury Coalition), includes a soil erosion/sediment control plan, provides for post-soil removal confirmatory soil sampling and restoration of excavated areas as well as a ground water monitoring program. The plan meets with the satisfaction of both Mr. Brookman and Mr. Beach.

The proposed settlement provides for a total of 199.28 acres of open space, 75.50+/- to be potentially purchased by the Town and 123.78+/- to be donated to the Town. The referendum for the purchase would be in May 2008 and payments, should the referendum pass, would commence in September 2008 with a $500,000 payment, with the balance being paid $500,000 per year over five years, and a final payment of $700,000. The Town of placeCitySimsbury would be entering into a purchase/sale agreement with River Bend Associates, Inc., owner of the property.

Attorney Smith then outlined the process of approval that will need to happen:

1. The three commissions must each vote on and approve the settlement agreement.

2. If all three commissions approve the agreement, the Superior Court would then consider each agreement at court hearings open to the public and render its approval and the cases would actually be withdrawn and there would be no further litigation between the parties. One aspect of the agreement is a complete release of the parties as to each other; there is no further liability with respect to the litigation that has been brought by River Bend. However, River Bend would not be excused from compliance relative to any other problem with the property.

3. The voters in placeCitySimsbury will need to decide whether or not to allocate the funds for the land acquisition in a May 2008 referendum.

Attorney Smith indicated that the agreement would resolve two pending lawsuits for the Conservation Commission, would replace an opening judgment and settle one lawsuit for the Planning Commission, and replace an opening judgment and settle one lawsuit for the Zoning Commission. Relative to the Zoning Commission, the decision to deny had resulted in one lawsuit which the Zoning Commission lost on all three rounds and Attorney Smith reminded the Commission that the Supreme Court has affirmed the text change and that the HOD zone is currently in effect on the 363 acre parcel, which provides for 2 units per acre for density and provides that the entire property, short of the wetlands, is developable. He further reminded the Planning Commission that they must follow the zone. In short, this density would be avoided by the settlement and there would be 75 affordable units set aside (representing the required 25% in force at the time of the application).

Attorney Smith asked Mr. Beach to address the issue of dioxin presence in connection with various barn fires that had been raised during the public hearings. Mr. Beach stated that questions were raised relative to the potential for organic pesticides which were on the site to become dioxin during combustion in various historic barn fires on the site. He stated that aerial topography had been used to identify where the barns had existed and only one was located on the triangle and this area was tested. Rotting timbers were found in a spoils pile and testing on the pile and the site of the old barn found extremely low levels of dioxin which was below the action level. Fire District records were also reviewed.

placeNorth Simsbury Coalition

Frank Cochran, of Cooper, Whitney, Cochran and Francois, stated that he is the attorney representing the North Simsbury Coalition, Inc. and assisted the Coalition in drafting an intervention petition for the initial proceedings in this matter. Attorney Cochran stated that the environmental issues were the only ones raised in the intervention and had to do with the soil contamination, in particular the use of soil mixing as a method of dealing with the problem, with the testing protocol being used in all the proper areas and the potential presence of dioxin. The Coalition participated at every level of the application process and all additional testing through contact with Mr. Beach.

The Coalition also requested that a note be placed on the land records identifying in general terms the contamination and the remediation in a form that would come to the attention of title searchers. The Coalition also had questions relative to air monitoring, particularly during the soil relocation and removal and any chemicals becoming volatilized and requested that monitoring be done in real time. Finally, the Coalition wanted the Town to be satisfied that it would not be subject to any further lawsuits in the event that any contaminated areas had been missed and cause ill damage. It is felt that the Town, the developer and the Coalition have done the maximum amount of due diligence that could be expected.

Mr. Cochran stated that the North Simsbury Coalition, Inc. has reviewed the documents as they came in and will not be objecting to entering into the settlement agreement.

Zoning Commission

Chairman Barney then asked members of the Zoning Commission who were present if they have any questions. Mr. Grace asked why just addressing 10.3 acres at Hoskins 7 will specifically remediate the problem, how the air and dust monitoring will happen and where the contaminated soil that is being removed is going. Ms. Askham asked if there would be a disclaimer on the mylars removing any future responsibility of the Town and when the Board of Finance would become involved relative to the proposed $2.7 million land purchase.

Mr. Beach stated that, at the time of the original application, he was the Chairman of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency. He said that the exact chemicals were not always applied the same in all the sites and that testing indicates that the Hoskins 7 area is the only area that requires actual soil removal. Any soil removed offsite will be taken to a landfill site that is specifically certified to deal with contaminated soil. He also indicated that the applicant is proposing real time air monitoring for particulate matter and contaminate matter will be responded to in less than 24 hours.

Chairman Miller asked if the 2 acres of wetlands that are included in the 7.7 acres that will have soil removed will be restored with wetlands type soil. Mr. Beach responded that clean soil will be brought in, but was not certain as to its type.

Relative to the disclaimer, Attorney Smith stated that this request would be subsumed in part by the notation that the North Simsbury Coalition wants in plans in a very visible area indicating that this land was contaminated at one time, but has been remediated to the standards applicable at the time of remediation. Attorney Smith added that as a legal matter, in view of the fact that the Town has done all that it can to assure proper review and study and there have been four Superior Court involving in large part environmental concerns and all the cooperative efforts since 2004, it would be extremely difficult for any future lawsuit to prevail. Attorney Smith also stated that the PersonNameBoard of Finance is aware of the proposed settlement and that, should the settlement be approved by all the commissions, it will move forward to the PersonNameBoard of Finance.

Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency

Chairman Miller then asked members of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency who were present for their questions. Mr. Bucknam stated that, although the dust monitoring program is in real time, his concern was that the level of pollutants were a more important criterion and, therefore, wondered if a 24 hour turnaround was sufficient. Mr. Bucknam also wanted to know the difference between soil relocation and soil mixing as well as what criteria was used for assigning the acres that would be subject to soil relocation/removal.

Mr. Beach responded that a 24-hour turnaround is the fastest response that can be had, but noted that removing 7 acres of soil to a depth of two to four feet is a tremendous amount and any high concentration level would also trigger a dust level issue. He also explained that relocating the soil does not drive it into the ground, there is no tilling in the subsoil and it is laid down on top. Mr. Brookman stated that two different criteria come into play – direct exposure (i.e., touching and eating) and pollutant mobility (leaching into the ground water), which is the criteria being used for the 10.3 acres, where the concentrations are a much lower criteria. Even though the soil is being spread, it is not getting into the ground water.

Chairman Miller stated that he would like to see wetlands plantings as a condition of the settlement and noted that this is a standard procedure. He also asked about the air monitoring relative to airborne pollutants. Bob Potterton of Fuss & O’Neill stated that the Hoskins 7 concentrations were measures using standards for exposure that are based on years of exposure. He stated that the material is not volatile and that dust monitoring is most important as the main chance of ingesting would be via dust particles. The applicant’s attorney, Tim Hollister, noted that page 7.c.1 of the settlement plan shows a complete wetlands planting schedule for remediated areas.

Planning Commission

Chairman Loomis then asked members of the Planning Commission who were there for their questions. Ms. Bednarcyk asked if the soil would be kept moist at all times and, once dust is airborne and above acceptable standards, would schools and residents be notified. She requested clarification of monitoring procedures and asked when the land purchase would go before the Planning Commission.

Mr. Beach stated that the site will be watered before tilling or at every pass, if needed and that operations would stop if conditions were unacceptable. He stated that sampling at the hot spots is random, but that additional testing was required for the saturated overburden areas. He noted that the testing exceeds state standards and provides results that are above a 95% confidence level.

Mr. Cunningham asked for clarification of part 6, section C of the settlement agreement in which the Town agrees to cooperate with River Bend relative to permits, etc. Attorney Smith stated that it is a standard clause that restates the obvious when parties have been in litigation over time and it just means that the Town will proceed in a cooperative fashion.

Chairman Loomis stated that he was uncomfortable with the short amount of time that the commission members have had to review the proposed settlement agreement and all associated additional documents and that the Planning Commission is charged with making decisions that do not damage the health and safety of the Town’s citizens. He was concerned about the soil remediation program and said that he needs assurance that the plan is sound and executed properly and will be monitored appropriately. He felt that there was no clear language for monitoring and reporting and that the Planning Commission needed additional time to understand all the documents so as to bring all the commissioners up to a level of confidence to vote. He thought it would be best to defer such a vote until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on dateMonth6Day26Year2007June 26, 2007.

Mr. Houlihan stated that the Planning Commission has had three Executive Committee sessions, spent an evening with the environmental expert and has had meetings with counsel and felt that the commissioners have had plenty of background on this issue. He stated that, based on the court decisions, the Commission has limited choices and that the settlement agreement provides a plan with less density than has been made available to the applicant by the Supreme Court. Therefore, he saw no reason for postponing the vote and preferred to move forward this evening. Mr. Cunningham stated that he is a new member of the Planning Commission and does not have the benefit of having attended previous meetings and would like time to educate himself on the subject before voting.

Ms. Bednarcyk said tha tsince some of the information that the Commission had received is new and made a motion to table the vote until the Planning Commission’s next regular meeting on June 26, 2007. Mr. Drake seconded the motion and it passed 5-1 (Mr. Houlihan voted “no”).

Public Discussion

All three chairmen asked for input from the public:

David Bush, 4 Katherine Lane, asked if there was a plan as to where soil was to be relocated, if the public would be able to see that plan and if the commissions would have any input in the plan.

Mr. Brookman indicated the relocation area on a map and stated that the soil relocation ensures that the soil is not placed in a highly concentrated fashion and that there will be a written and documented plan of relocation. Mr. Beach added that soil is not bringing in higher concentrations, that the lack of saturated overburden is the reason for relocation, and that there will be soil testing post-relocation.

Joan Coe, 26 Whitcomb Drive, asked Attorney Smith how much of his time had been spent dealing with the affordable housing issue vs. the environmental issues. Attorney Smith responding that a considerable amount of time was spent on the environmental issues and the majority of time was spent on remediation. Ms. Coe asked if the $2.7 million purchase price was a negotiated amount or an assessment of fair market value. Attorney Smith indicated that it was a negotiated price that is regarded to be in line with market value. Ms. Coe asked how many of the proposed homes would be on septic and/or well. Mr. Peck responded that all homes would be on Town water and that three of the homes would be on septic and the remainder would be on sewer. Ms. Coe asked if the removed soil would be in self-contained trucks and if the replacement soil being brought in will be tested to assure that it is not contaminated. Mr. Peck replied that the trucks are required to be securely covered and that replacement soil is subject to testing prior to being brought on the site. Ms. Coe asked who would be monitoring and regulating the affordable housing and who sets the price. Mr. Peck replied that the price is set in the affordable housing plan from the applicant and is based on a State of placeStateConnecticut formula. It remains a restricted price as long as the housing remains affordable and that the applicant has reserved the right to appoint an outside group to monitor compliance. Ms. Coe asked if the Town would be receiving any documentation of this compliance and Mr. Peck stated that it would be received on an annual basis.

Dave Balboni, 13 Fox Den Road, asked who was paying for the remediation and Attorney Smith replied that it was the applicant. Mr. Balboni asked what the affordable housing would cost the buyer and if the units could be rented. Mr. Peck stated that the costs would range from $110,000 to $185,000 and the units must be owner occupied. Mr. Balboni asked if the 26 additional homes that could feasibly be built if the 75 acres were not purchased by the Town would be 3-acre lots. Attorney Smith replied that the land would revert to the R-40 zone.

David Blume, 11 Musket Trail, thought that asking the commissions to approve the plan tonight was not a normal approval process and applauded the Planning Commission for taking the time to look at it and asked if the public would be hearing the details of the proposed plan at some point. Chairman Barney replied that this is not a traditional application, but rather a court-mandated settlement and that the issues have been discussed at great length and are no longer on the table for discussion. He noted that this is not a public hearing, but rather the chairmen are asking the public if they have questions. Mr. Beach added that there have been public hearings since 1999 and that all have been open to the public and have had newspaper and television coverage.

Mark McPherson, 4 County Road, stated that he knew of five tobacco barn fires on the site and had observed one in 1967/68 and was concerned that the location for only one burned barn had been found. Mr. Beach responded that finding 40-year-old residue is unlikely and that there would be no pesticide residue in an empty barn. Mr. McPherson said that the burned barns were full of tobacco. Mr. Brookman stated that testing showed very low levels. Mr. McPherson asked when the most recent testing had been done and Mr. Beach replied that there has been some testing done since 2005 to verify that contaminants have not moved offsite. Mr. McPherson stated that there has been much activity on the site in the last few years, some tilling and agricultural activity and wondered what has happened since the last testing. Mr. Beach stated that the Town has asked the applicant to supply a list of chemicals that have been applied recently and that none have a half life over one year. He said that the list is available to the public. He said that the fields that are currently being tilled are being planted with vegetables, not tobacco. Mr. McPherson asked where the homes with septic would be located and Mr. Beach replied that they would be at the intersection of Barndoor Hills and Holcomb. Mr. McPherson asked if there would be s sewer line down addressStreetCounty Road. Mr. Beach was unsure, but said that there would be a sewer line down addressStreetFiretown Road, past placeScarborough.

Paul Mikelson, 11 Whitcomb Drive, asked how the pesticides and fertilizers currently being applied are being monitored as there have been problems with many wells in the area. Mr. Peck stated that pesticide applications are required to be filed with the DEP as to the amounts being applied as part of their licensing program. Mr. Mikelson said he felt that the monitoring in place was unacceptable. He asked when it was anticipated that construction would begin. Attorney Hollister estimated that the earliest would be sometime in 2008.

Rich Afragola, 10 North Drive, asked what criteria was used to qualify for the affordable housing, if the land was owned by the buyer and how the Town was going to cope with potentially 600 more students. Mr. Peck stated that the qualifying income level is set by the State and is in the plan, that there would be common interest ownership of the land and that there was no anticipated student overage.

Ken Brown, 40 Brettonwood Drive, asked how $110,000-$185,000 homes next to $400,000-$500,000 homes would benefit the Town. Mr. Peck explained that the application is the result of a statute that exists in the State of placeStateConnecticut. Chairman Barney added that the commissions have had their powers taken from them by the State of placeStateConnecticut.

Mark Turpin, 16 Sanctuary Drive, asked if the degradation of dieldrine was the same as for chlordane. Mr. Brookman stated that it is 5-6 years maximum. Mr. Turpin asked, if the harmful chemicals are best left in organic soil, then why are they being moved. Mr. Beach replied that, if the criteria are exceeded, they must be removed.

Greg Herriford, 18 Gates Lane, asked, if the referendum fails, would the additional houses be on septic or well. Attorney Smith indicated they would most likely be on the sewer system, although Mr. Beach stated that they are currently outside of the sewer district and the WPCA would have to determine if they could service them.

Jim Koontz, 6 Fairfield Lane, stated that it sounds like we take this deal or else. If so, what is the “or else”? Chairman Barney explained that the State courts have permitted 641 houses to be built on the site and this negotiated settlement reduces the density to 299 houses. Mr. Koontz stated that the map makes it look like addressStreetFairfield Lane, which is currently a cul-de-sac, will become a cut through; Mr. Beach indicated that it is not a cut through, but rather an emergency access.

Diane Nash, 5 Merrywood, asked if the triangle was a designated area that the Town’s Open Space Committee has been looking to preserve. Chairman Loomis concurred that the area is a wildlife corridor that has been discussed by the Open Space Committee and the 1994 Plan of Development shows it as proposed open space.

Zoning Commission

Chairman Barney made the following resolution regarding settlement of pending litigation between the Simsbury Zoning 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 a public meeting held on dateMonth6Day13Year2007June 13, 2007, the Simsbury Zoning Commission in accordance with all applicable legal requirements and as advised by staff 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 dateMonth6Day2Year2000June 2, 2000 Settlement Revision: dateMonth5Day30Year2007May 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, last revised May 2007.

C. Settlement Agreement: River Bend Associates, Inc. et. al. v. Zoning Commission of the Town of placeCitySimsbury, et. al. dated dateYear2007Day4Month6June 4, 2007, revised dateYear2007Day6Month6June 6, 2007.

D. Applicants’ Affordability Plan for Housing Opportunity Units, revised to dateMonth5Day30Year2007May 30, 2007 prepared by Griffin Land, Fairfield 2000 Homes Corporation and Shipman & Goodwin, LLP.

E. Declaration for Meadowood, placeCitySimsbury, StateCT; S&G draft dated dateMonth5Day29Year20075/29/07.

F. Housing Opportunity Development Zone, Zoning Regulation Amendment to Article Ten of the placeCitySimsbury Zoning Regulations; Revised to dateMonth5Day30Year2007May 30, 2007.

The Conservation 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: Revised May 2007 (pertains to all Commissions)

1. The Town’s consultant should provide his opinion in writing regarding this report and its contents.

2. Section 2.0. This section should be worded to be clear that soil relocation and remediation activities will be completed prior to construction of any structures associated with any phase of the development.

3. Section 5.3. Consideration should be given to revising the wording of the last paragraph to make clear that, if the air standards are exceeded, the soil removal would be stopped until the situation is corrected. Suspending soil removal and checking only the methodology may not be the best way to minimize the potential for air pollution. More specifically, the applicant is required to work with the Town’s environmental consultant to arrive at an appropriate methodology and timing of sampling and excavation activities that will assure to the maximum extent possible that the health and safety of the residents is protected.

4. Section 6.0. It is recommended it be stated who will determine 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. Applicant, owner or consultant? Who makes this determination and how does it get made?

5. Section 7.0. It is recommended that the post-relocation and removal of any soils sampling requirements of the RSR’s be implemented by the applicant. A copy of the results should be given to the Town on a regular basis.

6. Section 8.0. It should be made clear that any earth materials removed from the site shall not be brought back on to the site.

7. Section 9.0 It should be made clear that the RSR program will be instituted by the applicant and that the results shall be sent to the Town on a monthly basis.

8. Applicant should agree to monitor the air on the site in the area of the soil removal where RSR’s are exceeded (Hoskins 7 area).

Settlement Agreement:

9. The two blanks on page 4 shall be filled in with the appropriate sheet number.

10. Paragraph 7.c. shall be clarified as to meaning to the satisfaction of the Town’s Special Counsel or removed from this agreement.

11. Paragraph shall indicate that there will be 75 units designated as affordable within Meadowood and shown on the referenced plans.

12. The plans referred to in paragraph 7.a. must meet all the agreed upon requirements of the settlement agreement in order to be approved.

13. The term “support” shall be removed from paragraph 7.b.

Other considerations of the Commission:

In addition to the above, the Commission hereby adopts the referenced Zoning amendment, but retains the authority to renumber this amendment in accordance with the requirements of the remainder of the Zoning Regulations.

In addition to the above, the Commission hereby adopts the HOD zone for the subject property.

Chairman Barney motioned that the Zoning Commission hereby approves the proposed settlement based on the above maps, documents and agreement terms as modified herein by the Commission. Ms. Gilkey seconded the motion and it passed 6-0.

Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency

Ms. Winters suggested the addition of a three-year monitoring plan of the viability of the successful restoration of the wetlands and the applicant agreed.

Chairman Miller made the following resolution regarding settlement of pending litigation between the Simsbury Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency 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 a public meeting held on dateYear2007Day13Month6June 13, 2007, the Simsbury Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency in accordance with all applicable legal requirements and as advised by staff 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 dateYear2000Day2Month6June 2, 2000 Settlement Revision: dateYear2007Day30Month5May 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, last revised May 2007.

C. Settlement Agreement: River Bend Associates, Inc. et. al. v. Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland and Watercourses Agency of the Town of placeCitySimsbury, et. Al. dated dateYear2007Day4Month6June 4, 2007, revised dateYear2007Day6Month6June 6, 2007.

D. Applicants’ Affordability Plan for Housing Opportunity Units, revised to dateYear2007Day30Month5May 30, 2007 prepared by Griffin Land, Fairfield 2000 Homes Corporation and Shipman & Goodwin, LLP.

E. Declaration for Meadowood, placeCitySimsbury, StateCT; S&G draft dated dateYear2007Day29Month55/29/07.

The Conservation 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: Revised May 2007 (pertains to all Commissions)

1. The Town’s consultant should provide his opinion in writing regarding this report and its contents.

6. Section 8.0. It should be made clear that any earth materials removed from the site shall not be brought back on to the site.

7. Section 9.0 It should be made clear that the RSR program will be instituted by the applicant and that the results shall be sent to the Town on a monthly basis.

8. Applicant should agree to monitor the air on the site in the area of the soil removal where RSR’s are exceeded (Hoskins 7 area).

Settlement Agreement:

9. The two blanks on page 4 shall be filled in with the appropriate sheet number.

10. Paragraph 7.c. shall be clarified as to meaning to the satisfaction of the Town’s Special Counsel or removed from this agreement.

11. The plans referred to in paragraph 7.a. must meet all the agreed upon requirements of the settlement agreement in order to be approved.

12. The term “support” shall be removed from paragraph 7.b.

13. The applicant shall commit to replacing the contaminated soil which is being removed from the wetlands with clean wetlands soil to be properly placed in the large wetlands in the northwest portion of the site and properly planted with wetlands species as shown on 7.c.1. Further, the applicant commits to conducting a three-year monitoring plan on the viability of the wetlands and the success of the restoration efforts with periodic reports to the Town.

Chairman Miller made a motion that the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency hereby approves the proposed settlement based on the above maps, documents and agreement terms as modified herein by the Commission. Ms. Sexton seconded the motion and it passed

Planning Commission

Chairman Loomis asked the Planning Commission to develop their questions and give them to Mr. Peck by Monday.

III. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Grace made a motion to adjourn the Special Meeting of the Zoning Commission at timeHour21Minute509:50 PM. Ms. Askham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Ms. Winters made a motion to adjourn the Special Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency at timeHour21Minute509:50 PM. Mr. Bucknam seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Ms. Bednarcyk made a motion to adjourn the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission at timeMinute50Hour219:50 PM. Mr. Cunningham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.